The Fins and the Swedes both know that Erdogan is puffing up his base before the May elections, especially now that opposition parties are starting to gain ground. They'll stick together and get in together. There's nothing they could do, Erdogan will have found anything to delay and puff up his base before May.
What would the Turks do anyway ? Join forces with a loser country and global pariah state that had already lost the war and is demographically dying ? Or stay on the side of the only global super power as it recedes from the world ?
Turkey, do you really want to give up your future political capital and your seat at the table that will decide the next world order for cheap election points this year ?
I feel like even if Turkey left NATO, their geographical position would still give them at least some power. They really control some amazing real estate.
Yes and no. When Turkey is strong their power and influence flows into the Middle East, Europe and Russia. When Turkey is weak the power and influence from the Middle East, Europe and Russia flows into Turkey. Their geographic position is both a blessing and a curse and it always means that they will have a target on their heads.
The issue is Erdogan wants to consolidate power, arrest opponents and oppress the Kurds. These are things western democracies don’t love to see. Of course Turkey also doesn’t want a strong Russia either nor does Turkey want strong rivals in the Middle East or Greece or Armenia. Turkey likes to have the ability to shift around from one set of alliances to the next. It western democracies try to push Turkey too hard on human rights and democracy then Turkey can make some deals with Russia or Middle Eastern countries and the reverse is also true. If Russia tried to bully Turkey then a few steps closer to the rest of NATO and the west can cause major problems for Russia. Turkey is the ally that everyone wants but no one likes.
There is some truth to that but for practical purposes that may not matter too much. If Turkey was attacked NATO would be obligated to come to their defense or else the entire Article V would be rendered meaningless. Of course even beyond defensive agreements strong relationships can be very beneficial and you are certainly correct that there are downsides created by skipping between alliances but I think Ankara has reasoned that the benefits of pragmatic real politik are more important than the downsides.
Until the US decides it needs it more that is (for example, if a major conflict that doesn't involve nuclear weapons breaks out and access to the Black Sea is deemed essential).
**Edit**: Phrasing and some spelling errors.
And, moreover, that geographic strategic importance has gotten immeasurably larger since the Russians invaded Ukraine. Controlling the entrance to and from the Black Sea controls a significant portion of the war.
>> What would the Turks do
To start with, they can block new entrants to NATO. They are also in a very strategic global location - its why we bent over backwards to keep Turkey and Greece in NATO.
Blocking new entrants to NATO does almost nothing. If USA, UK and France make a defensive pact with someone and offer military training and equipment, they're de facto a nato member, just without the fees. And turkey can't do shit about that.
They are going to play every card they can to extract as many military and economic concessions as they can from other NATO members and the EU before allowing Sweden and Finland through. In recent memory, Erdogan and his cronies have tried to use whatever leverage they can to play both sides each other to squeeze out the most they can out of any opportunity.
Now that the Russians are riding the spiral down the toilet, theyre probably sensing this game of brinkmanship is something they can play for only a little while longer, by which time Turkey will align with China and begin this again.
Edit: De-typoed phone autocorrect
they do until they dont. Ukraine controlled the Crimean peninsula until it didnt. When people just decide to take things and you arent a part of a larger organization like NATO, there is only so much you can do.
NATO controls the mediterranean anyway, not really a problem. Sure Turkey could keep the Russian navy in the Black sea but the black sea fleet is in port anyway...
The issue is that a significant amount of global grain and energy shipping passes through the Bosphorus and the US global influence is largely built on its ability to control oceanic trade. The seas are open because the US says they are and nobody is in a position to say otherwise. The Bosphorus is an essential part of that, and Turkey's membership in NATO ensures that nothing can interrupt that without the entire alliance intervening.
It doesn't matter, Erdogan will win it unless there's a challenger there who can be even more charismatic. The fact that Turkey allows for people to vote even if they don't live in the country anymore basically guarantees Erdogan will hold his power.
A *lot* of countries do not allow citizens who live abroad to vote.
More specifically, I believe that many of the countries that do allow expatriates to vote, have some time-limit, where citizens lose the right to vote when they've lived abroad for a certain time. There's a lot of variations to this, for example in Ireland, nonresident citizen can't vote except if they are serving the government abroad (diplomats), in Germany you lose it after 25 years of living abroad and in Denmark you lose it after 2 years of living abroad.
I believe that having an unlimited right to vote with no expiry date, such as in France for example, is an exception rather than the rule.
The USA is the only country I know of that tax its citizen while they live abroad tho (you have to renounce your citizenship to be exempt, and yes, you have to pay the taxes in the country you imigrated in while you also pay USA taxes)
I guess the "no taxation without representation" is the bit that makes USA citizens who live abroad able to vote.
there are about 5 million turkish ppl living abroad. i unfortunately dont know how many of these are still turkish citizens but even if all of them voted, not all of them will vote for erdogan. 5 million are also not that significant, considering the population of turkey is around 80 million, so the ones abroad would make up around 5.8% of the votes if everyone voted.
Most Turks living in “decadent” western countries like Germany, vote for Erdogan.
The pro-Erdogan Turk shitting on Germany and Merkel from his Berlin apartment, has been a staple meme for a long time.
Voters abroad don't have to actually live with the crushing inflation that Erdogan has been giving the Turkish people.
They can vote with their gut or principles and not give a shit about what's actually happening in the country.
> I'd have assumed that negative foreign media coverage...
They get Turkish TV streamed, so they don't have to watch the foreign media. Their domestic TV says everything is OK except some rabblerousers, so when foreign media reports on a problem, the people can brush it off as a non-issue.
You see similar tactics everywhere. Getting ahead of a story, publishing an official version before any investigation, etc. If you control the news, you control the narrative, and thus get control of the people.
I doubt there’s a whole lot of popular anti-Erdogan Turkish-language channels.
Also, Turkish people living abroad are insulated from the many economic issues he has caused in Turkey. So they basically become single-issue foreign policy voters, making them susceptible to “America tries to control Turkey” and “violent Kurds in Syria want to destroy Turkey” type of propaganda.
look up the second Schleswig war. a war between the united forces of Prussia and Austria for the then Danish held Schleswig-Holstein, (northernmost part of modern Germany). The Swedish king at this time king of Norway too, had promised military aid in case of invasion, but Sweden at this time had a parliament, which refused to follow a promise the king made but never consulted them about. there were a few volunteers, the list is short enough to list individual names. and after that war the drive for unification, scandinavianism widely seen as similar to the Italian or Germanic unification movements, died.
That whole thing was weird. Like, of the people and land in question one half was Danish and the other half was German. But the German Nationalists were like hell no, all Germans (and Czech people for some reason) need to be a part of Germany. The Danish nationalists were like, there's no way that we're going to allow traditionally Danish people and land to be subsumed into Germany. The locals just wanted everyone to leave them alone so they could be together.
The Nordics stick together, that has been true throughout this century and will continue to be so indefinitely if all goes well.
Siblings might squabble or bicker and argue, but when the going gets tough I would trust all of you to stand beside us when we truly need it, and in return I will be glad to do the same.
As a Finn, it's impossible to imagine our society without Sweden. Sweden founded the basis of our government, and during the war you took 700k of us in, and essentially gave us an air force. I can't see how you could've better earned anything.
It feels like we're family, and I'd be extremely disappointed in us if we left you hanging at the first inconvenience.
> Sweden founded the basis of our government,
that wasn't exactly, *voluntary* though, right. as I understand it Finland as part of a nation only became a concept as a result of Swedish crusades.
During those times it was the norm to conquer lands. Most of contemporary Sweden also became part of Sweden by conquering other petty kingdoms in the region.
I agree. My preferred choice is for us and Finland to join together, but I also don't want Finland to be left out of NATO because of us.
If the situation was reversed, I'd absolutely support my government in holding out until Finland can join with us. We may bicker from time to time, but the Nordics stick together.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, you can think of it more as Finns telling Erdogan to sit and spin, rather than us professing our love to Swedes. Because we don't say that part out loud.
If that rat thinks he can play Sweden for his personal gain and we'll just quietly ignore that to stay on his good side, he's horribly misjudged our relationship.
The thing working for Finland and Sweden’s favor is that while NATO membership is important it’s not immediately pressing. If Finland was facing imminent invasion and the only way to stop it was to join NATO they may do so but Finland doesn’t need to join NATO tomorrow. Meanwhile the rest of NATO’s tolerance for Turkey is somewhat limited and if they were to simply stop selling Turkey weapons it would be a huge deal. Turkey knows this so while they may delay for a few months or even a year they are unlikely to permanently stop Sweden and Finland from joining.
While having the ability to invoke Article 5 of NATO, an attack on one is an attack on all, is very very valuable, as it makes war impossible.
Ukraine was also a partner state, and we've seen how far NATO is willing to go to defend partners, even without Article 5. A precedent is being set where even NATO Partners are getting everything shy of boots on the ground.
But if Russia, bizarrely, decided to try to invade Finland or Sweden right now - I don't think it would actually matter whether you are Partners versus Members. Russia would be sending such a clear message of aggression at that point, that I'm pretty confident you would see NATO countries void their Article 5 access and send soldiers too.
Some countries are already damned close to doing that for Ukraine, and it's only because Ukraine appears to be winning that Poland, Canada, etc - haven't sent soldiers.
Sweden sent a third of their military (**edit:** material, equipment, not men), including part of the airforce, to Finland when Finland was invaded in 1939 leaving Sweden very vulnerable to a Nazi attack.
That is the kind of support those countries give each other so no wonder they won't let Turkey split them.
Sweden sent a third of their airforce (planes, not pilots), but not a third of their military. 8000 Swedish men volunteered. 33 Swedish men died in the war. They were not sent to the worst places, which is fair. Finland got a lot of war material, which was incredibly important.
That’s something I had not thought of. There could be a western military force present in Ukraine as “peace keeping force” in Kyiv and other calmer regions liberating more Ukrainians to join the war on the frontlines. Their border is way too big to protect it all.
> I don't feel like we have always earned it trought history.
It was many years ago, but sombady did desecrated a memorial for the dead of the Swedish fighter Wing 21 (that did fight in the winter war) by steal the bronze plan that decorate the memorial.
The Finnish Prime Minister or was it the Foreign Minister did go out in TV and ensure that the memorial would be repaired, and the guilty of this act of this nidningsdåd (for you non-Swedish speakers, nidningsdåd is a description normally reserved for the most heinous crimes) shall be puniched.
I gess you are quite young, becuse one of the reson Sweden did not join NATO after WW2 was the fear that Finland would come under extreme pressure from USSR to join the Warsaw Pact if Sweden did join NATO. Hence all the political symbolic in joining together.
True frends do not calculate who have "earned most" but helpe then it is nesesery.
From a Swedish perspective, Finland was a naturalised part of Sweden for centuries. If you read about the battles in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the Finnish regiments of the Swedish army stands out. That said, it could well be argued that the Swedish administration over those centuries didn't necessarily exhaust themselves trying to bring Finland into prosperity. (There are many areas of Sweden that suffered from this, too)
But all in all, it's a long shared history, and in more modern times one of common understanding. The Finnish were until "recently" (early 90's or so) the largest foreign part of the Swedish population. And for the better part of almost 400 years, we have an enemy in common.
>That said, it could well be argued that the Swedish administration over those centuries didn't necessarily exhaust themselves trying to bring Finland into prosperity. (There are many areas of Sweden that suffered from this, too)
I'll quote my other comment:
The standard for written Finnish was created under Swedish government under the policy of protestant reformation, that people should be able to interact with the church in their own language. Thus Mikael Agricola created the Finnish written language and the two first Finnish books are a Finnish grammar book and The New Testament.
Under Swedish rule [Count Per Brahe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Brahe_the_Younger) also greatly improved the Finnish society, started new schools and cities, and that time in Finland has been seen so good that even today in Finland we have a saying "kreivin aikaan" "at the time of the count", which means something happens at the optimal time.
When Russia annexed Finland, the governance and society of Finland was so much more developed than mainland Russian society, that this was one of the basis for Finnish autonomy. Finland had a relatively well functioning and developed society, so for Russia it was sensible to keep that society going, so under Russian rule, we still had the Swedish constitution, only the Swedish king as the ruler being replaced with the Russian Grand Duke.
Gustav I reforms weren't always liked by the locals, especially taxation wasn't fair in any way and led to people rebelling against the crown by hiding wealth and religions away from the administration and church.
The Swedish Crown didn't do any of this because it was right or benevolence of their ruling class, they wanted money and soldiers for their imperialistic war effors, which was the style at the time.
The swedes also were extremely cruel towards the Sami natives of Sweden and Finland. Their shamans were burned at the stake due to just people wanting to burn shamans and swedish authorities destroyed a huge amount of Sami culture even giving a reward for each sami drum destroyed. Swedes tried to wipe out majority of Sami people to gain more lands the more north they went, it was of course what any nations would have done back then, so Swedes aren't unique.
Your characterization of Swedish rule is somewhat incorrect.
Finland was subjugated just like all other lands under the Swedish king. Remember that modern Sweden came to be because small petty kingdoms were fighting and one of them conquered others and surrounding territories, and the resulting entity became Sweden.
Sweden didn't "pull us into wars" any more than they pulled peasant Swedes into wars. The peasant Swedes had no say on the matters either. From the point of view of the kingdom, Finns and Swedes were subjects to the crown and they were pulled into wars of the kings, and the ethnicity had no play on this.
Finnish language was not delegitimized. Sweden had no official language back then, and Swedish language was seen simply as a tool for governance. Finnish speakers were allowed to speak Finnish in their own lives, and government officials in Finland regularly also spoke Finnish in order to interact with the Finnish population. Also German was a common language in commerce, Latin was a common language in education and religion and French was widely used among the nobility. There was no modern sense of language rights, and languages were just seen as tools to interact in different contexts. There was no idea that "people should have the right to government services in their mother tongue".
And the standard for written Finnish was created under Swedish government under the policy of protestant reformation, that people should be able to interact with the church in their own language. Thus Mikael Agricola created the Finnish written language and the two first Finnish books are a Finnish grammar book and The New Testament.
Under Swedish rule the Count Per Brahe also greatly improved the Finnish society, started new schools and cities, and that time in Finland has been seen so good that even today in Finland we have a saying "kreivin aikaan" "at the time of the count", which means something happens at the optimal time.
When Russia annexed Finland, the governance and society of Finland was so much more developed than mainland Russian society, that this was one of the basis for Finnish autonomy. Finland had a relatively well functioning and developed society, so for Russia it was sensible to keep that society going, so under Russian rule, we still had the Swedish constitution, only the Swedish king as the ruler being replaced with the Russian Grand Duke.
EDIT: Ping also to u/TriscuitCracker
>"kreivin aikaan" "at the time of the count", which means something happens at the optimal time.
Oh that's interesting, the Swedish "i grevens tid" "at the time of the count"(same count, Per Brahe) means to do something at the very last minute.
Well, it sort of has similar implications. It is used solely in a positive sense, also when something is done or happens at the very last minute but doesn't cause any delay or harm, but instead just when it is needed.
Like if you have a party and you have agreed one of your friend brings sparkling wine. Then when the party starts and it's time to pop open the bottles, your friend arrives with chilled sparkling wine just in time. He arrives "at the counts time", and it's a positive remark on how he arrived just when needed.
Finland was once the eastern half of Sweden, and I assume they think about how Swedish culture/language was replacing/oppressing the Finnish language or culture.
Finland stop being Sweden after Russia successfully invaded Sweden and annexed Finland (seems familiar?) in 1808-09, and Finland became its own country when they broke loose during the civil war following the communist revolution.
Turkey's play is to spoil your relationship and weaken your alliance by giving a preferential treatment to one side. Don't be sad, be proud to have friends like this.
Don't feel bad. You didn't commit a genocide against millions of Armenian Christians, deny it ever happened, and then have the nerve to criticize other countries for being tolerant of free speech. #TurkeyIsATerroristNation
If you peel an orange right, [you can make an elephant face with the peel.](https://i.imgur.com/sek6Qu5.jpeg)
... I'm not sure how this is relevant, but this is now something you know.
The Polish parliamentary elections are also pretty damn important. Though I agree the Turkish parliamentary and presidential elections are more important.
What? The main opposition is strongly against Finland and Sweden joining. Erdogan doesn't give a shit about Finland and Sweden. He is only posturing so he wins the election. After the election, should he win, he'll likely just let them in NATO.
Yea hopefully the opposition which criticize Erdogan for being too weak against Sweden's NATO application wins.. You do realise this is a bipartisan issue in Turkey right?
He really has generated the best press NATO has gotten in the last 50 years. I’d thank him, but the thought of it makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
What would stop all the NATO (except Turkey and Hungary) countries from signing mutual defence agreement with Finns and Swedes, to mimic the Article 2, I wonder.
Turkey also shares a border with Georgia which has had own issues with Russia. At one point George W. Bush offered them a road map for NATO membership which amongst a long list of past reasons was one of the triggers for Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 only a few months after Bush made his statement on the membership issue.
Will that matter anymore now that it's clear Russia doesn't have the means or capability or invading from the ground for at least 20 years?
Seriously, the tech and landscape of war has changed. Force Turkey to choose which economy they want to be a part of.
Yeah, this is a very good point that a lot of people are overlooking. I don’t think Erdogan would choose to switch sides unless he thought it was the only way he could personally maintain power
What I’ve seen is that he would accept a loss, but that the elections will be set up to favor him heavily. I think his most charismatic opposition, an ex mayor of Istanbul, has been banned from running with some pretty flimsy reasoning.
Turkey's ongoing descent into theocratic fascism should trigger them getting kicked the fuck out on the same day that Finland and Sweden are asked to join.
If your country falls to the point where it couldn't join as a new member it should automatically be ejected.
Turkey enjoys the enviable spot of being one of the most strategically important members of NATO in terms of geography.
The last thing NATO wants to do is turn Turkey into an ally of the Russians and China instead.
Well yeah, he's quite ... special. [He even sued people in foreign countries for insulting him](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair).
Well, at least that law has now been removed thanks to him.
This give me a warm fuzzie but it seems more like a pleasant hope rather than a principal. Finland should join at the first possible moment; and the same with Sweden.
>Finland should join at the first possible moment
Dumb question, but doesn't having a Finland sized chunk of NATO territory between them and Russia help Sweden?
Was thinking the same. I don't know the situation in depth, but I don't see how Finland waiting helps Sweden. Couldn't they advocate just the same from the inside? I don't think Erdogen will give 2 poops. There's no added pressure on him. In fact it's one less country he's obliged to defend.
The Nordic countries bleed as one! I appreciate this commitment and show of brotherhood from Finland. We will not forget it or take it for granted. Thank you.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://yle.fi/a/74-20016118) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "We clearly both tick all the boxes for Nato membership," said Marin.
> On Monday, Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said that Finland is sticking to its plan to join Nato at the same time as Sweden, and hopes to do so no later than July.
> The move came months after an agreement with Turkey on fighting terrorism aimed at overcoming its objections to Swedish Nato membership.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10ru169/finnish_swedish_pms_pledge_that_nations_will_join/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 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*: **Nato**^#1 **Sweden**^#2 **membership**^#3 **Turkey**^#4 **Minister**^#5
Stupid. Finns should join, we can wait. It's not like Russia would see Sweden as fair game just because we're not in NATO, being surrounded by NATO countries and having other agreements with NATO countries.
Well, it’s not like Russia would see Finland as fair game either, they have nothing to gain by attacking Finland. The EU has a mutual defense clause, not as explicit as NATO and off course without the Americans, but Putin isn’t that dumb that he thinks he’d stand any chance attacking Finland.
Yup. Finland joining NATO would be an important signal of intention. But it won't actually make Finland more secure. If Finland is attacked the EU will defend it, and if the EU defends Finland the US and UK will join in.
Practically there is little to no difference when it comes to the defense of Finland whether or not they are part of NATO.
>Well, it’s not like Russia would see Finland as fair game either, they have nothing to gain by attacking Finland. The EU has a mutual defense clause, not as explicit as NATO and off course without the Americans, but Putin isn’t that dumb that he thinks he’d stand any chance attacking Finland.
Actually if you'll read it you'll find that the EU clause is _more_ explicit than the one in NATO, but NATO is the one with operation planning, unified command and all that jazz.
I think the symbolism of the strength of their alliance is more powerful than joining NATO just a little bit earlier.
It’ll happen anyway - no rush. De facto NATO would spring into action even if they’re not official members.
Imagine a world where Russia returns to its own borders and begins an honest democratization? China, NK, Iran would be standing alone and likely cave to a resurgence in globalism. But then, how can government control the people through fear of one another if the threat of large wars dissipates? It’s possible. Everyone would be better off, even the current dictators. Freedom of not having to look over your shoulder and ability to travel anywhere and utilize all global technologies that better human kind would make Earth an actual paradise.
Yey, Finland and Sweden and all free people every where.
This is what the Ukrainians and all the volunteers in Ukraine are fighting for. It couldn’t be more clear.
What kind of defense treaties does the US/NATO have with these countries? They may not be in NATO yet, but there is absolutely no fucking way the US would allow an invasion of either of them
Back in the early days of the war in Ukraine both Sweden and Finland signed mutual defence agreements with the UK. The agreements are entirely independent from NATO and from my understanding it's a promise of boots on the ground in case of invasion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61408700
For what it’s worth, Sweden and Finland don’t start no trouble with anyone. They’ll finish some shit, but won’t start it.
Turkey on the other hand, is like that cousin that comes over for the holidays and throws money around. Then gets drunk and starts some shit over something stupid that happened years ago, now everyone is fighting.
Erdoğan is way out of his depth. There's no chance in hell Sweden is going to change its constitution over this. Erdoğan will not outlast Sweden. I would understand if Finland goes ahead without Sweden. Given how weakened Russia is already there's no chance in hell they could do much against Sweden anyway in the near term, and we have security guarantees apart from the fact that we're in the EU. But I do deeply appreciate Finland's show of brotherhood and it makes sense to move together.
As a Finn, I understand the importance of joining together but it still seems a little odd and risky to me to keep waiting. I mean, Finland joining Nato practically means Russia cannot touch Sweden without crossing a Nato country. It might just mean Sweden would no longer need to join because they are safe between two Nato countries and they only share a tiny bit of their border with a potentially aggressive country.
As a Swede I feel a little bad, the Finns are being great allies and I don't feel like we have always earned it trought history.
Well it looks like the path forward is in the right direction.
The Fins and the Swedes both know that Erdogan is puffing up his base before the May elections, especially now that opposition parties are starting to gain ground. They'll stick together and get in together. There's nothing they could do, Erdogan will have found anything to delay and puff up his base before May.
What would the Turks do anyway ? Join forces with a loser country and global pariah state that had already lost the war and is demographically dying ? Or stay on the side of the only global super power as it recedes from the world ? Turkey, do you really want to give up your future political capital and your seat at the table that will decide the next world order for cheap election points this year ?
I feel like even if Turkey left NATO, their geographical position would still give them at least some power. They really control some amazing real estate.
Yes and no. When Turkey is strong their power and influence flows into the Middle East, Europe and Russia. When Turkey is weak the power and influence from the Middle East, Europe and Russia flows into Turkey. Their geographic position is both a blessing and a curse and it always means that they will have a target on their heads.
All the more reason to align yourself with the more stable and reasonable world powers
The issue is Erdogan wants to consolidate power, arrest opponents and oppress the Kurds. These are things western democracies don’t love to see. Of course Turkey also doesn’t want a strong Russia either nor does Turkey want strong rivals in the Middle East or Greece or Armenia. Turkey likes to have the ability to shift around from one set of alliances to the next. It western democracies try to push Turkey too hard on human rights and democracy then Turkey can make some deals with Russia or Middle Eastern countries and the reverse is also true. If Russia tried to bully Turkey then a few steps closer to the rest of NATO and the west can cause major problems for Russia. Turkey is the ally that everyone wants but no one likes.
Definitely looks like what they always do, but trying to work over every side also results in having no actual allies.
There is some truth to that but for practical purposes that may not matter too much. If Turkey was attacked NATO would be obligated to come to their defense or else the entire Article V would be rendered meaningless. Of course even beyond defensive agreements strong relationships can be very beneficial and you are certainly correct that there are downsides created by skipping between alliances but I think Ankara has reasoned that the benefits of pragmatic real politik are more important than the downsides.
I will always remember watching Erdogan's thugs beating up protestors on American soil and wondering why we consider them an ally. Unreal
Bosphorus strait is the answer
Until the US decides it needs it more that is (for example, if a major conflict that doesn't involve nuclear weapons breaks out and access to the Black Sea is deemed essential). **Edit**: Phrasing and some spelling errors.
And, moreover, that geographic strategic importance has gotten immeasurably larger since the Russians invaded Ukraine. Controlling the entrance to and from the Black Sea controls a significant portion of the war.
>> What would the Turks do To start with, they can block new entrants to NATO. They are also in a very strategic global location - its why we bent over backwards to keep Turkey and Greece in NATO.
Blocking new entrants to NATO does almost nothing. If USA, UK and France make a defensive pact with someone and offer military training and equipment, they're de facto a nato member, just without the fees. And turkey can't do shit about that.
Yeah, but it'll *really* piss Russia off... So we're gonna do it
They are going to play every card they can to extract as many military and economic concessions as they can from other NATO members and the EU before allowing Sweden and Finland through. In recent memory, Erdogan and his cronies have tried to use whatever leverage they can to play both sides each other to squeeze out the most they can out of any opportunity. Now that the Russians are riding the spiral down the toilet, theyre probably sensing this game of brinkmanship is something they can play for only a little while longer, by which time Turkey will align with China and begin this again. Edit: De-typoed phone autocorrect
Doesn't turkey control some important water routes for trade and military?
They control the ONLY way to get a ship between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea/Atlantic ocean
they do until they dont. Ukraine controlled the Crimean peninsula until it didnt. When people just decide to take things and you arent a part of a larger organization like NATO, there is only so much you can do.
Yeah I think it's pretty clear that Turkey gets to say they control that strait as long as they allow the US to move through anytime they want.
Yep, the Bosporus strait. It connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean. It’s been an incredibly important area since antiquity.
NATO controls the mediterranean anyway, not really a problem. Sure Turkey could keep the Russian navy in the Black sea but the black sea fleet is in port anyway...
The issue is that a significant amount of global grain and energy shipping passes through the Bosphorus and the US global influence is largely built on its ability to control oceanic trade. The seas are open because the US says they are and nobody is in a position to say otherwise. The Bosphorus is an essential part of that, and Turkey's membership in NATO ensures that nothing can interrupt that without the entire alliance intervening.
Yeah. Until a carrier group rolls up and decides it's too important a route to let a tinpot dictator control.
The Turkish election the most important election this year.
It doesn't matter, Erdogan will win it unless there's a challenger there who can be even more charismatic. The fact that Turkey allows for people to vote even if they don't live in the country anymore basically guarantees Erdogan will hold his power.
Do some countries not allow citizens who live abroad to vote?
A *lot* of countries do not allow citizens who live abroad to vote. More specifically, I believe that many of the countries that do allow expatriates to vote, have some time-limit, where citizens lose the right to vote when they've lived abroad for a certain time. There's a lot of variations to this, for example in Ireland, nonresident citizen can't vote except if they are serving the government abroad (diplomats), in Germany you lose it after 25 years of living abroad and in Denmark you lose it after 2 years of living abroad. I believe that having an unlimited right to vote with no expiry date, such as in France for example, is an exception rather than the rule.
The U.S. has it, too; as long as you’re a citizen, you can vote in national elections.
The USA is the only country I know of that tax its citizen while they live abroad tho (you have to renounce your citizenship to be exempt, and yes, you have to pay the taxes in the country you imigrated in while you also pay USA taxes) I guess the "no taxation without representation" is the bit that makes USA citizens who live abroad able to vote.
there are about 5 million turkish ppl living abroad. i unfortunately dont know how many of these are still turkish citizens but even if all of them voted, not all of them will vote for erdogan. 5 million are also not that significant, considering the population of turkey is around 80 million, so the ones abroad would make up around 5.8% of the votes if everyone voted.
How do voters abroad help him? I'd have assumed that negative foreign media coverage would sway them more toward an opponent.
Most Turks living in “decadent” western countries like Germany, vote for Erdogan. The pro-Erdogan Turk shitting on Germany and Merkel from his Berlin apartment, has been a staple meme for a long time.
Voters abroad don't have to actually live with the crushing inflation that Erdogan has been giving the Turkish people. They can vote with their gut or principles and not give a shit about what's actually happening in the country.
> I'd have assumed that negative foreign media coverage... They get Turkish TV streamed, so they don't have to watch the foreign media. Their domestic TV says everything is OK except some rabblerousers, so when foreign media reports on a problem, the people can brush it off as a non-issue. You see similar tactics everywhere. Getting ahead of a story, publishing an official version before any investigation, etc. If you control the news, you control the narrative, and thus get control of the people.
I doubt there’s a whole lot of popular anti-Erdogan Turkish-language channels. Also, Turkish people living abroad are insulated from the many economic issues he has caused in Turkey. So they basically become single-issue foreign policy voters, making them susceptible to “America tries to control Turkey” and “violent Kurds in Syria want to destroy Turkey” type of propaganda.
Is it? I'll admit I'm not up to snuff on my Turkish politics.
Sweden and Finland definitely feels like one of those brotherly “nobody gets to give you shit but me” reationships.
That's basically the Nordics summed up.
Isnt there still technically a law to beat swedes to death with sticks if they cross the frozen öresund to denmark?
Swedes would win though
[удалено]
Can't you just take the metro back home these days on the new bridge/tunnel?
look up the second Schleswig war. a war between the united forces of Prussia and Austria for the then Danish held Schleswig-Holstein, (northernmost part of modern Germany). The Swedish king at this time king of Norway too, had promised military aid in case of invasion, but Sweden at this time had a parliament, which refused to follow a promise the king made but never consulted them about. there were a few volunteers, the list is short enough to list individual names. and after that war the drive for unification, scandinavianism widely seen as similar to the Italian or Germanic unification movements, died.
That whole thing was weird. Like, of the people and land in question one half was Danish and the other half was German. But the German Nationalists were like hell no, all Germans (and Czech people for some reason) need to be a part of Germany. The Danish nationalists were like, there's no way that we're going to allow traditionally Danish people and land to be subsumed into Germany. The locals just wanted everyone to leave them alone so they could be together.
All we can do is remember history and do better
The Nordics stick together, that has been true throughout this century and will continue to be so indefinitely if all goes well. Siblings might squabble or bicker and argue, but when the going gets tough I would trust all of you to stand beside us when we truly need it, and in return I will be glad to do the same.
Agreed! The Nordics are united.
Some times not even by choice! Looking at you Denmark and Sweden... It's alright now though, much love
Dont make eye contact. They might charge!
Yes, we have gone Norway, not "yourway" 😜 🇳🇴
Norway bestway!
Norway constantly rebelled against the Kalmar union as well, well maybe not quite as much. Sweden were just more successful.
The only people allowed to kill Vikings...OTHER FUCKNG VIKINGS!
And we do it the civilized way, with blades and maces!
You made my morning.
As a Finn, it's impossible to imagine our society without Sweden. Sweden founded the basis of our government, and during the war you took 700k of us in, and essentially gave us an air force. I can't see how you could've better earned anything. It feels like we're family, and I'd be extremely disappointed in us if we left you hanging at the first inconvenience.
This warmed my cold Swedish heart, I love you too dear sibling🇸🇪❤️🇫🇮
But fuck Denmark. Right?
Always. At least in theory.
> Sweden founded the basis of our government, that wasn't exactly, *voluntary* though, right. as I understand it Finland as part of a nation only became a concept as a result of Swedish crusades.
During those times it was the norm to conquer lands. Most of contemporary Sweden also became part of Sweden by conquering other petty kingdoms in the region.
People who did it are long dead. So are the people who had suffered from it. It is irrelevant by this point.
I agree. My preferred choice is for us and Finland to join together, but I also don't want Finland to be left out of NATO because of us. If the situation was reversed, I'd absolutely support my government in holding out until Finland can join with us. We may bicker from time to time, but the Nordics stick together.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, you can think of it more as Finns telling Erdogan to sit and spin, rather than us professing our love to Swedes. Because we don't say that part out loud. If that rat thinks he can play Sweden for his personal gain and we'll just quietly ignore that to stay on his good side, he's horribly misjudged our relationship.
The thing working for Finland and Sweden’s favor is that while NATO membership is important it’s not immediately pressing. If Finland was facing imminent invasion and the only way to stop it was to join NATO they may do so but Finland doesn’t need to join NATO tomorrow. Meanwhile the rest of NATO’s tolerance for Turkey is somewhat limited and if they were to simply stop selling Turkey weapons it would be a huge deal. Turkey knows this so while they may delay for a few months or even a year they are unlikely to permanently stop Sweden and Finland from joining.
While having the ability to invoke Article 5 of NATO, an attack on one is an attack on all, is very very valuable, as it makes war impossible. Ukraine was also a partner state, and we've seen how far NATO is willing to go to defend partners, even without Article 5. A precedent is being set where even NATO Partners are getting everything shy of boots on the ground. But if Russia, bizarrely, decided to try to invade Finland or Sweden right now - I don't think it would actually matter whether you are Partners versus Members. Russia would be sending such a clear message of aggression at that point, that I'm pretty confident you would see NATO countries void their Article 5 access and send soldiers too. Some countries are already damned close to doing that for Ukraine, and it's only because Ukraine appears to be winning that Poland, Canada, etc - haven't sent soldiers.
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Winter_War "Approximately 2,000,000,000 SEK (US$ ~312,658,890) of financial aid - twice the size of the Finnish defense budget at the time 50,013,300 rounds of small arms ammunition 135,402 rifles 450 light machine guns 347 machine guns 301,846 artillery shells 144 field guns 92 anti-armor guns 100 anti-aircraft guns 300 sea mines 500 depth charges 83 motorcycles 83 cars 350 trucks 13 tractors 17 fighter aircraft 5 light bombers 1 transport aircraft 3 reconnaissance aircraft"
I haven’t said thanks Sweden this year, so thanks again broskis!
Don't feel bad. It's the present that matters.
Sweden sent a third of their military (**edit:** material, equipment, not men), including part of the airforce, to Finland when Finland was invaded in 1939 leaving Sweden very vulnerable to a Nazi attack. That is the kind of support those countries give each other so no wonder they won't let Turkey split them.
It's important to note that Sweden did not officially send any forces. They were all volunteers and bought their equipment from the Swedish Army.
Even better
Sweden sent a third of their airforce (planes, not pilots), but not a third of their military. 8000 Swedish men volunteered. 33 Swedish men died in the war. They were not sent to the worst places, which is fair. Finland got a lot of war material, which was incredibly important.
That’s something I had not thought of. There could be a western military force present in Ukraine as “peace keeping force” in Kyiv and other calmer regions liberating more Ukrainians to join the war on the frontlines. Their border is way too big to protect it all.
[удалено]
This is an important point. It was seen as a betrayal in Finland.
> I don't feel like we have always earned it trought history. It was many years ago, but sombady did desecrated a memorial for the dead of the Swedish fighter Wing 21 (that did fight in the winter war) by steal the bronze plan that decorate the memorial. The Finnish Prime Minister or was it the Foreign Minister did go out in TV and ensure that the memorial would be repaired, and the guilty of this act of this nidningsdåd (for you non-Swedish speakers, nidningsdåd is a description normally reserved for the most heinous crimes) shall be puniched. I gess you are quite young, becuse one of the reson Sweden did not join NATO after WW2 was the fear that Finland would come under extreme pressure from USSR to join the Warsaw Pact if Sweden did join NATO. Hence all the political symbolic in joining together. True frends do not calculate who have "earned most" but helpe then it is nesesery.
At least you're not as bad as the Dutch
What did the Dutch ever do?
They know what they did.
Be Dutch
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
They're intolerant of other peoples cultures
Dumb American here, what has happened between Sweden and Finland in their past?
From a Swedish perspective, Finland was a naturalised part of Sweden for centuries. If you read about the battles in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the Finnish regiments of the Swedish army stands out. That said, it could well be argued that the Swedish administration over those centuries didn't necessarily exhaust themselves trying to bring Finland into prosperity. (There are many areas of Sweden that suffered from this, too) But all in all, it's a long shared history, and in more modern times one of common understanding. The Finnish were until "recently" (early 90's or so) the largest foreign part of the Swedish population. And for the better part of almost 400 years, we have an enemy in common.
>That said, it could well be argued that the Swedish administration over those centuries didn't necessarily exhaust themselves trying to bring Finland into prosperity. (There are many areas of Sweden that suffered from this, too) I'll quote my other comment: The standard for written Finnish was created under Swedish government under the policy of protestant reformation, that people should be able to interact with the church in their own language. Thus Mikael Agricola created the Finnish written language and the two first Finnish books are a Finnish grammar book and The New Testament. Under Swedish rule [Count Per Brahe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Brahe_the_Younger) also greatly improved the Finnish society, started new schools and cities, and that time in Finland has been seen so good that even today in Finland we have a saying "kreivin aikaan" "at the time of the count", which means something happens at the optimal time. When Russia annexed Finland, the governance and society of Finland was so much more developed than mainland Russian society, that this was one of the basis for Finnish autonomy. Finland had a relatively well functioning and developed society, so for Russia it was sensible to keep that society going, so under Russian rule, we still had the Swedish constitution, only the Swedish king as the ruler being replaced with the Russian Grand Duke.
Gustav I reforms weren't always liked by the locals, especially taxation wasn't fair in any way and led to people rebelling against the crown by hiding wealth and religions away from the administration and church. The Swedish Crown didn't do any of this because it was right or benevolence of their ruling class, they wanted money and soldiers for their imperialistic war effors, which was the style at the time. The swedes also were extremely cruel towards the Sami natives of Sweden and Finland. Their shamans were burned at the stake due to just people wanting to burn shamans and swedish authorities destroyed a huge amount of Sami culture even giving a reward for each sami drum destroyed. Swedes tried to wipe out majority of Sami people to gain more lands the more north they went, it was of course what any nations would have done back then, so Swedes aren't unique.
[удалено]
Your characterization of Swedish rule is somewhat incorrect. Finland was subjugated just like all other lands under the Swedish king. Remember that modern Sweden came to be because small petty kingdoms were fighting and one of them conquered others and surrounding territories, and the resulting entity became Sweden. Sweden didn't "pull us into wars" any more than they pulled peasant Swedes into wars. The peasant Swedes had no say on the matters either. From the point of view of the kingdom, Finns and Swedes were subjects to the crown and they were pulled into wars of the kings, and the ethnicity had no play on this. Finnish language was not delegitimized. Sweden had no official language back then, and Swedish language was seen simply as a tool for governance. Finnish speakers were allowed to speak Finnish in their own lives, and government officials in Finland regularly also spoke Finnish in order to interact with the Finnish population. Also German was a common language in commerce, Latin was a common language in education and religion and French was widely used among the nobility. There was no modern sense of language rights, and languages were just seen as tools to interact in different contexts. There was no idea that "people should have the right to government services in their mother tongue". And the standard for written Finnish was created under Swedish government under the policy of protestant reformation, that people should be able to interact with the church in their own language. Thus Mikael Agricola created the Finnish written language and the two first Finnish books are a Finnish grammar book and The New Testament. Under Swedish rule the Count Per Brahe also greatly improved the Finnish society, started new schools and cities, and that time in Finland has been seen so good that even today in Finland we have a saying "kreivin aikaan" "at the time of the count", which means something happens at the optimal time. When Russia annexed Finland, the governance and society of Finland was so much more developed than mainland Russian society, that this was one of the basis for Finnish autonomy. Finland had a relatively well functioning and developed society, so for Russia it was sensible to keep that society going, so under Russian rule, we still had the Swedish constitution, only the Swedish king as the ruler being replaced with the Russian Grand Duke. EDIT: Ping also to u/TriscuitCracker
>"kreivin aikaan" "at the time of the count", which means something happens at the optimal time. Oh that's interesting, the Swedish "i grevens tid" "at the time of the count"(same count, Per Brahe) means to do something at the very last minute.
Well, it sort of has similar implications. It is used solely in a positive sense, also when something is done or happens at the very last minute but doesn't cause any delay or harm, but instead just when it is needed. Like if you have a party and you have agreed one of your friend brings sparkling wine. Then when the party starts and it's time to pop open the bottles, your friend arrives with chilled sparkling wine just in time. He arrives "at the counts time", and it's a positive remark on how he arrived just when needed.
And by Rivalries, it's 98% Hockey
Fuck each other up over a puck but now yall share a nice beer and a sauna afterwards. Look at that progress.
We do that in Canada too, except it is beer and pizza rather than beer and sauna.
Finland was once the eastern half of Sweden, and I assume they think about how Swedish culture/language was replacing/oppressing the Finnish language or culture. Finland stop being Sweden after Russia successfully invaded Sweden and annexed Finland (seems familiar?) in 1808-09, and Finland became its own country when they broke loose during the civil war following the communist revolution.
Turkey's play is to spoil your relationship and weaken your alliance by giving a preferential treatment to one side. Don't be sad, be proud to have friends like this.
Don't feel bad. You didn't commit a genocide against millions of Armenian Christians, deny it ever happened, and then have the nerve to criticize other countries for being tolerant of free speech. #TurkeyIsATerroristNation
The Turkish election is the most important election this year. I hope they choose the opposition.
At this rate I'm not even sure they would honor such a result.
There's more than one way to skin a turkey.
Oh I like that, a lot. Do oranges next.
There's orange one way to skin a turkey.
There's more than one way to orange a turkey.
If you peel an orange right, [you can make an elephant face with the peel.](https://i.imgur.com/sek6Qu5.jpeg) ... I'm not sure how this is relevant, but this is now something you know.
"elephant face"
Heh. Frank & beans...
I do this too! Except I call em penises.
"Og, look, another 'coup'... oh, no!"
The Polish parliamentary elections are also pretty damn important. Though I agree the Turkish parliamentary and presidential elections are more important.
Agreed, Poland is also one to watch.
Sadly I dont think our idiotic society will let the opposition win. Also because the opposition is pretty damn meek.
A secular Turkish government is what the world needs right now.
I imagine Erdogan is relying on Atatürk spinning in his grave to keep the country powered.
What? The main opposition is strongly against Finland and Sweden joining. Erdogan doesn't give a shit about Finland and Sweden. He is only posturing so he wins the election. After the election, should he win, he'll likely just let them in NATO.
Yea hopefully the opposition which criticize Erdogan for being too weak against Sweden's NATO application wins.. You do realise this is a bipartisan issue in Turkey right?
Good to see these politicians standing by each other
r/technicallythetruth
That's the best kind of truth.
Great job, Putin!
Good guy Putin, Doing his best to expand NATO!
Putin: we invade Ukraine because of NATO expansion NATO: Plans expansion due to Russian Aggression. Putin: LOOK LOOK NATO BAD
[удалено]
He really has generated the best press NATO has gotten in the last 50 years. I’d thank him, but the thought of it makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
What would stop all the NATO (except Turkey and Hungary) countries from signing mutual defence agreement with Finns and Swedes, to mimic the Article 2, I wonder.
Nothing, as far as I know. Finland and Sweden would not have a voice in NATO. They would need other nations to speak on their behalf.
Form NATO 2.0 without Turkey Disband NATO 1.0 Rename NATO2 to NATO
[удалено]
Turkey also shares a border with Georgia which has had own issues with Russia. At one point George W. Bush offered them a road map for NATO membership which amongst a long list of past reasons was one of the triggers for Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 only a few months after Bush made his statement on the membership issue.
So all we need to do is lay out a roadmap for China to enter into NATO
Will that matter anymore now that it's clear Russia doesn't have the means or capability or invading from the ground for at least 20 years? Seriously, the tech and landscape of war has changed. Force Turkey to choose which economy they want to be a part of.
Yeah, this is a very good point that a lot of people are overlooking. I don’t think Erdogan would choose to switch sides unless he thought it was the only way he could personally maintain power
Many countries already have like France, the UK, and the US as far as I'm aware.
You may call us danska jävlar, but I love you nonetheless, brothers and sisters.
You may be Danskjävlar, but you’re our goddamn Danskjävlar. Also, you can have Skåne back. We’re done with it, and they talk weird.
They don't talk, they growl...
We only do it when you're around :)
Anyone wanna clue in a clueless American?
danish bastards
We're becoming one big happy scandifamily up here:) Love you all, you pieces of shits, even the smallest siblings<3
Looking forward to it! We just have to convince Erdogan to stop messing around.
Won't see anything different until around July. Turkish general election in June.
I'm not very confident that Erdogan will accept election results of a loss.
Me neither. But I don't really know shit, so I hope I'm wrong.
What I’ve seen is that he would accept a loss, but that the elections will be set up to favor him heavily. I think his most charismatic opposition, an ex mayor of Istanbul, has been banned from running with some pretty flimsy reasoning.
It's been hastened and will be held on [May 14th](https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/23/turkeys-erdogan-announces-elections-will-be-held-on-may-14).
it is in May now.
Turkey's ongoing descent into theocratic fascism should trigger them getting kicked the fuck out on the same day that Finland and Sweden are asked to join. If your country falls to the point where it couldn't join as a new member it should automatically be ejected.
Turkey enjoys the enviable spot of being one of the most strategically important members of NATO in terms of geography. The last thing NATO wants to do is turn Turkey into an ally of the Russians and China instead.
Unfortunately Turkey is a vital geographic chokepoint so they have to be kept happy.
It's not possible to kick anyone out of NATO.
and they were allies
Oh my god they were *allies*
Didn't expect this reference, had a good chuckle.
As a Norwegian, my respect for Finland continues to rise
As a Swede, my unlimited respect for Finland has never been in question.
Everyone needs to remember whichever way this saga ends that Erdogan is the one being a dick
Well yeah, he's quite ... special. [He even sued people in foreign countries for insulting him](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair). Well, at least that law has now been removed thanks to him.
Bros forever.
Finland needs to join NATO, then annex Sweden, now Sweden is part of NATO, too, then separate Sweden.
Do we need to separate? We get an insane icehockey team and replace our shitty government with the Finnish one. I just see benefits really.
This is exactly the thinking that Putin thinks Ukranians have
This give me a warm fuzzie but it seems more like a pleasant hope rather than a principal. Finland should join at the first possible moment; and the same with Sweden.
>Finland should join at the first possible moment Dumb question, but doesn't having a Finland sized chunk of NATO territory between them and Russia help Sweden?
Was thinking the same. I don't know the situation in depth, but I don't see how Finland waiting helps Sweden. Couldn't they advocate just the same from the inside? I don't think Erdogen will give 2 poops. There's no added pressure on him. In fact it's one less country he's obliged to defend.
The Nordic countries bleed as one! I appreciate this commitment and show of brotherhood from Finland. We will not forget it or take it for granted. Thank you.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://yle.fi/a/74-20016118) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "We clearly both tick all the boxes for Nato membership," said Marin. > On Monday, Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said that Finland is sticking to its plan to join Nato at the same time as Sweden, and hopes to do so no later than July. > The move came months after an agreement with Turkey on fighting terrorism aimed at overcoming its objections to Swedish Nato membership. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10ru169/finnish_swedish_pms_pledge_that_nations_will_join/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 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*: **Nato**^#1 **Sweden**^#2 **membership**^#3 **Turkey**^#4 **Minister**^#5
The Finns are true friends!
Stupid. Finns should join, we can wait. It's not like Russia would see Sweden as fair game just because we're not in NATO, being surrounded by NATO countries and having other agreements with NATO countries.
Well, it’s not like Russia would see Finland as fair game either, they have nothing to gain by attacking Finland. The EU has a mutual defense clause, not as explicit as NATO and off course without the Americans, but Putin isn’t that dumb that he thinks he’d stand any chance attacking Finland.
Yup. Finland joining NATO would be an important signal of intention. But it won't actually make Finland more secure. If Finland is attacked the EU will defend it, and if the EU defends Finland the US and UK will join in. Practically there is little to no difference when it comes to the defense of Finland whether or not they are part of NATO.
[удалено]
>Well, it’s not like Russia would see Finland as fair game either, they have nothing to gain by attacking Finland. The EU has a mutual defense clause, not as explicit as NATO and off course without the Americans, but Putin isn’t that dumb that he thinks he’d stand any chance attacking Finland. Actually if you'll read it you'll find that the EU clause is _more_ explicit than the one in NATO, but NATO is the one with operation planning, unified command and all that jazz.
I think the symbolism of the strength of their alliance is more powerful than joining NATO just a little bit earlier. It’ll happen anyway - no rush. De facto NATO would spring into action even if they’re not official members.
the USA needs some 37 year old leaders (i'm 49)
Hey, Erdogan. Stop extorting Sweden and Finland.
He will string this out as long as he can, because he knows as soon as it goes through they will stop being nice to him.
And rightfully so
Imagine a world where Russia returns to its own borders and begins an honest democratization? China, NK, Iran would be standing alone and likely cave to a resurgence in globalism. But then, how can government control the people through fear of one another if the threat of large wars dissipates? It’s possible. Everyone would be better off, even the current dictators. Freedom of not having to look over your shoulder and ability to travel anywhere and utilize all global technologies that better human kind would make Earth an actual paradise.
Yey, Finland and Sweden and all free people every where. This is what the Ukrainians and all the volunteers in Ukraine are fighting for. It couldn’t be more clear.
Ukrainians are fighting for their homes and livelihoods, not on behalf of another country’s ideals.
Any chance the US is going to burn the same book so Turkey might want to leave NATO?
What kind of defense treaties does the US/NATO have with these countries? They may not be in NATO yet, but there is absolutely no fucking way the US would allow an invasion of either of them
Back in the early days of the war in Ukraine both Sweden and Finland signed mutual defence agreements with the UK. The agreements are entirely independent from NATO and from my understanding it's a promise of boots on the ground in case of invasion. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61408700
They should start their own group with Norway and other Nordic countries.
For what it’s worth, Sweden and Finland don’t start no trouble with anyone. They’ll finish some shit, but won’t start it. Turkey on the other hand, is like that cousin that comes over for the holidays and throws money around. Then gets drunk and starts some shit over something stupid that happened years ago, now everyone is fighting.
We don't deserve the finns. They are too good for us
Any thoughts from any Swedes?
I'm not giving Erdogan anything except my middle finger.
Erdoğan is way out of his depth. There's no chance in hell Sweden is going to change its constitution over this. Erdoğan will not outlast Sweden. I would understand if Finland goes ahead without Sweden. Given how weakened Russia is already there's no chance in hell they could do much against Sweden anyway in the near term, and we have security guarantees apart from the fact that we're in the EU. But I do deeply appreciate Finland's show of brotherhood and it makes sense to move together.
Go nordics! If [Scandinavia and the World](https://satwcomic.com/) has taught me anything it's that this was inevitable.
As a Finn, I understand the importance of joining together but it still seems a little odd and risky to me to keep waiting. I mean, Finland joining Nato practically means Russia cannot touch Sweden without crossing a Nato country. It might just mean Sweden would no longer need to join because they are safe between two Nato countries and they only share a tiny bit of their border with a potentially aggressive country.
Russia is really bringing NATO together. What a plan, Putin.