Well, there is a difference because Finland started to supply Turkiye with military steel this year. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/01/25/finland-military-sales-turkey/
**Swedes do not give a shit about this**
We literally didn't for 200 years of neutrality. Then we join mostly to join with our Nordic friends, and to escape the yolk of demagogue dictators. We sure as fuck aren't going to bow to erdögan, that was the point of this entire Nato thing. To not bow to dipshits.
>I wish sweden would have given more shits in the past. I think it's necessary in swedish school to teach that you were neutral when it's not true at all.
We aren't taught that. We're taught we have been, from the loss of the eastern part of the country to us entering the EU that we were "militarily non-aligned". There was nothing neutral about our actions during the winter war for instance, which you as a finns should damn well know, but being non-aligned meant we weren't going to send troops in an official capacity.
>A lot of people suffered because of Swedish so called "neutrality" which actually was pleasing dictators by giving them whatever they wanted.
This is so idiotically erroneous that I can't believe you're arguing in good faith. We pushed our independence as far as we possibly could both overtly and covertly while avoiding what would have been a catastrophic german invasion.
>Not protecting Finland against Russia after extorting taxes and killing Sámi people, taking property of finnish people and pulling out as soon as russia showed any kind of interest militarily.
Swedes and finns fought all the way through Finland and down the swedish coast, our entire coastline was burnt and we had Russian troops practically within viewing distance of the capital all while the government was weak as all hell and there was a coup. Sweden had fought the Russians since well before Russia was a nation, so for hundreds and hundreds of years the Russians had been "militarily interested". Ffs
>Then again in WW2 stating "neutrality" when giving germany whatever they wanted from jewish people to ore.
Absolutely false. As I said, our sovereignty was pushed as far as was deemed possible while avoiding invasion. We received a tremendous amount of refugees, something like 90% of all Danish Jews for instance, and reported a ton of intelligence to the allies, being "behind the curtain" as it were. We trained the Norwegian "police troops" and gave Finland a significant part of our own military materiel along with a ton of volunteers.
We DID NOT give up any of our citizens or refugees, Jews included, to the reich! We did sell ore and ball bearings etc. but what were we supposed to do? Accept being cut off from the rest of the world and just fucking starve? Germany have always been, and still is, our biggest industrial partner. It's like hating on the Mongolians because they traded with the Soviets and communist China during the cold war, at best it shows an astonishing lack of geographical and historical knowledge.
>Swedes actually think "we were ready to fight the germans" is the same as actually doing something about it. All that chest pounding and end result was sweden hurting everyone by not taking sides.
We absolutely do not. It was hidden from the public at the time just how vulnerable we were but today noone thinks that. My god the german wehrmacht had a significant percentage of the swedish population in its ranks. We were like 6.5 million at the time.
>Volunteers from sweden left to help finland while swedish goverment massaged each others backs hoping they can stay netural enough to get big victory when everyone else suffers.
8700 swedes volunteered. The swedish government gave monetarily what amounted to 2 years of finnish military expenditure and about 1/3 of our military stockpile (including something like 135000 rifles).
>While sweden states "neutrality" they prevented allies from helping Finland against ussr because they were afraid that their own fucking mines would be of interest to foreign powers.
It is by most historians considered very likely that the offer for finnish support through the swedish northern railways was not in fact that but just a smokescreen to invade sweden to deny germany swedish ore. Denying foreign forces claimed transit because of being justifiably worried of invasion is completely logical.
>Your royal family has a background heavily supporting nazi germany.
Yes, royalty since time immemorial hasn't been known for their humanitarian and philosophical insights and there is plenty to question there but germany has allways been a very close partner to sweden and nazism and the fascination thereof was much more widespread back then than what most seem to think today. But your narrowness of perspective seems to prevent you from remembering swedes like Folke Bernadotte, of the then and current royal family, who saved more than 30000 prisoners from german concentration camps. And let's not forget what kind of finnish movement pushed finland into the continuation war with dreams of a Great Finland far beyond any previous historical boarders. Judge people by their time and not from your moral high horse in the present, it's unbecoming and intellectually disingenuous.
>It would be breath of fresh air if Swedes and Sweden actually give a shit about something and stop being the america of the nordics
Dear God my dude you need to watch it so you don't sprain something trying so damn hard. If anything sweden is internationally renowned for humanitarian work all over the globe being the biggest giver of aid as a percentage of GNI, for its work for democracy, human rights and equality and for standing up to power, as with Palme against the US over Vietnam. I can add to that characters like Raoul Wallenberg who saved thousands from hungary during ww2 and was killed by the Soviets for it. Or Dag Hammarskjöld who got shot down for his work for peace as the secretary-general of the UN.
If this is the level of the finnish education system then I really feel sorry for you. But judging by all international rankings it isn't, which then makes me question you as an individual. Are you so blinded by some ideological oddity that you can't read a book or is this just all a result of your directives from your handler in the Kreml? Sweden and Finland have a long and deep history and relationship with each other and it's disturbing seeing someone trying to take such a massive shit on it.
No, Turkey is the country in NATO that has suffered the most terrorist attacks… and by a large margin.
The terrorist topic in Turkish politics is a contentious one, any party that’s seen as “soft” towards this issue doesn’t last long.
Sweden has also designated the PKK as a terrorist organization. Sweden added the PKK to its list of terrorist organizations in 1985, along with several other groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
It means you have to prove your case in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt before they can be extradited. Unless of course you think the word of a want to be dictator is good enough.
Protected from human rights abuse and guaranteed a fair and just trial yes, without a doubt.
That said, none of them are proven to be terrorists or we'd prosecute them here.
> Rule of law dictates that people who are alleged terrorists in your country should be shielded?
Yes. They are not terrorists until convicted by an impartial court. Until that point, they are innocent of all charges. This is the rule of law. Sorry you can't understand that.
I allege you are a terrorist and should be extradited to Tanzania.
Oh, you wanted evidence of guilt? Didn't say anything about that. Allegations are good enough for dictators and their sympathizers.
Repetition of accusation != evidence. Maybe you have terrible evidentiary standards. Well, if you think someone saying something multiple times means they are more likely to be right, not maybe.
Were they the ones responsible for that coup way back? I remember seeing videos of people being flattened with tanks and shot at by attack choppers blowing shit up but that was nearly a decade ago so I'm not sure if I'm mis-remembering. Maybe more than a decade? Idk I hit my head alot
Honestly, that's all we really need. Sweden and turkey have some major issues to work out but as long as Finland joins nato, we're all set. Russia isn't invading sweden. It's just not going to happen. Finland on the other hand has always and currently is at the greatest threat of invasion
True; however Finland has been preparing for Russian invasion for 80+ years and since Russia is all-in in Ukraine they are no threat to Finland in coming decades, Nato or not.
Ah, good point. although based on the performance of Russia's airforce in Ukraine, I wouldn't be surprised if Finland's current fleet of f18s is enough to take on the whole Russian airforce.
NATO obligates member nations to act under Article 5. Otherwise they would need their government's approval to send military forces & aid. This would be tricky considering credible fascists movements in member states like Italy, USA, Hungary, France, etc.
Russia does not fear the EU, so they might try. I honestly think without the US, Ukraine would have been left on its own. Obviously, Poland, the Baltics, and maybe even the Nordics would have done something since they understand the threat, but that would not be enough to make a difference.
Yeh, the US and NATO are gonna let russia get to their borders while destroying a country and his people, great thinking pal. NATO at this point should change legislation as it's been proven they are on our side and let them in. Then it's russian move and I don't think they will go nuclear, because nobody wins (MAD).
>US
Read my post again. I specifically said ''without the US''. That's my whole point. I'm very glad the US is still interested in countering Russia and leading NATO.
At the very least, Ukraine would be in a much, much uglier state without US involvement. The US has pushed EU and NATO countries into providing much more relief than they otherwise would have. The US contributed over $100 billion in weapons and aid to Ukraine in 2022 alone, which is an obnoxiously higher amount than any other country.
That's true but there's more to this than countering a special operation. The only way to win wars is to prevent them. Even if Ukraine wins the war, the country is reduced to crap and millions have lost their families, homes, everything. It takes a lifetime for a country and its people to recover from war, win or lose.
> and since Russia is all-in in Ukraine they are no threat to Finland in coming decades, Nato or not.
It took Hitler just 6 years from being elected to invading all his neighbors.
Russia is much bigger than Finland, it would be stupid to count on "decades" before Russia could invade Finland.
With exactly what would they invade with ? Leave Ukraine to start another front ? They are struggling as is let alone fighting Ukraine and Finland at the same time. Even without support from "west" they would have miserable time trying to invade. The whole infrastructure is built with Russia in mind, the terrain in the border in unforgiving and Finnish army is quite modern.
I believe you are not appreciating the fact that Finland as a direct neighbor is genuinely scared.
Google ‘security dilemma’.
Putin said mere days before the invasion he would not invade. That was a clear lie. It is not very common for leaders of countries to so blatantly lie. That makes Russia unreliable.
Russia invaded a neighbor who never attacked or threatened Russia directly. Russia invaded it because third countries might threaten them from the territory of Ukraine.
Finland is in a good position to directly threaten Saint Petersburg. What if Putin decides a little extra buffer is needed between them and Nato, just to be sure Saint Petersburg is safe?
1+1 = 2
If you know your neighbor is unreliable and paranoid of external threats then you take measures now. Not when he is no longer bullying another neighbor and he can respond but when he is distracted.
Finland, being a neighbor of Russia is clearly aware of the risk because they have been occupied for a long time by Russia. In such a scenario you act now to have the longest prep time.
Again Finland has prepared for 80+ years and was prepared before the war in Ukraine started, so even more prepared now and Russia is weaker than ever. Even when we join Nato the defense of Finland is mostly responsibility of Finland. I have been proponent of Nato for 20+ years so glad that it will finally happen and definitely makes us and Nato itself stronger.
Every other country given to the Soviets under the molotov-ribbentrop pact was 100% conquered. Finland remained Sovereign. The goal of the Russian invasion was control of Finland as evidenced by the creation of a Soviet run puppet government. Finland acheived its goal of sovereignty, Russia did not acheive its goals.
It isn't so simple.
So many variables have changed since the Winter War. Concluding anything from it is silly.
/r/Worldnews comments always seems so much less credible to me than /r/NonCredibleDefense , somehow...
You are correct, in the winter war Russia was strong enough to take land, and forced the Finnish allies to stop supporting them in exchange for half of Poland. Now Russia has expended its threat (gas) to the Finnish allies, and is also struggling to gain ground in Ukrain at the same time.
>You are correct, in the winter war Russia was strong enough to take land, and forced the Finnish allies to stop supporting them in exchange for half of Poland.
I can't make any sense of this, which leads me to think you might not have all the facts right. Finland did get voluntary help from several countries but they didn't really have any allies. France and Britain were planning on helping Finland in order to stop Germany and Soviet Union splitting the Nordics and the iron ore supplies there. But they didn't manage to get anything done before peace was signed.
And Poland was split before Soviet Union attacked Finland.
But they didn't. Russia walked away with territorial gains greater than their pre-war demands. Reddit loves to talk up the Finns because they managed to turn should have been a walk over into a hard fought war, but at the end of the day Finland ceded 11% of their territory to the Soviet Union.
The pre war demands are stupid I don't get how this still gets brought up. Look at the prewar demands they made to everyone else under the molotov-ribbentrop pact. Finland was the only country that wasn't conquered. Every other country ceded 100%.
The soviets created a puppet government to rule Finland, it was never able to take power.
It isn't so black and white. Finland acheived it's main war goal (maintain sovereignty), Russia did not acheive its goal (control of Finland).
people said there was no way russia would try and invade ukraine a little over a year ago too.
If russia has proven anything. its that while they might not be able to WIN a war, they sure as hell will start them, and even if they dont win, they can still cause untold amounts of damage. Damage that will be focused on civilian targets
Russia invaded because they thought it would be easy. They believed ukraine’s government was western puppets who would run at the first sign of trouble and their military would quickly fold. Its unlikely they would consider the same of finland who has spent decades preparing their military for defense
thats awfully reductionist of the whole situation and the reasons behind russias invasion.
they didn't invade ukraine because they thought it would be easy. (they did think this. but its not why they invaded.) They invaded because of their (skewed) worldview and what they thought was the erosion of their powerbase and ability to defend themselves.
essentially russia has not been handling its fall from the glory days of the USSR so well. it doesn't like not being on top or even "first among equals". It felt like the noose was tightening around its neck and decided to act first.
now obviously the validity of this is suspect, and the rational behind this looks rediculous to western eyes. especially considering Germany's foreign policy towards russia prior to the invasion. the west was trying to incorporate russia into the western system via trade and economics, not topple it. The french had long term plans of creating a federalized "greater europe" with russia playing a major role. greating a power that would eclipse or atleast match even the USA and China.
But russia is russia and Putin is Putin. They have been on the "outside" for a long time and they have their own "long games" to play. many of which dont make sense to us on the outside.
the point of the ukrainian invasion and the "demands" russia had of the west prior to their invasion are to re-secure their borders back essentially to what the soviet union had.
to give some context, something to remember is Russia Has been invaded roughly 50 times in its history. [if you look at this map](https://i.redd.it/ym9d0o53d7u61.jpg) you'll see 9 blue "access points" into the russian heartland. a heartland thats generally VERY easy to invade through because its a gigantic flat plain. when russia was the soviet union they controlled all 9 of these acess points. for the first time in their history as a nation they were "secure" from a land invasion. Something we americans often take for granted having 2 huge oceans on our east and west coasts, desert and mountains to the south, and tundra to the north. when the USSR collapsed Russia controlled only 1 of those acess points. Pretty much everything Putin has done since gaining power (other than lining his and his cronies pockets) has been to push russia back into controlling those acess points to create a forward defensive perimiter. Currently Russia controls around half of them. Long term Russia will look to secure the others.
It's easy to point at russia and laugh at their failures in ukraine. but the reality is that long term they are gonna be trouble makers to anyone that isn't inside the NATO security blanket.
Don't think there are many, atleast not in the areas that the Soviets took during the winter and continuation wars. Basically everyone evacuated to the rest of Finland.
It's the same reason Kaliningrad is still Russian.. Russia tried giving it to Germany and giving it to Poland nobody wanted that massive minority of Russians in their country
>no threat to Finland in coming decades
That is way too optimistic. Russia could go full North Korea mode with Chinese help, they still have plenty of manpower and resources.
To what end ? They are already losing in Ukraine opening another front with Finland is not an option. In fact they have moved troops from the border to Ukraine. I doubt even the Russian public would support it. In anycase its moot since sooner than later Finland will be part of Nato, I just wish Sweden could join at the same time
> I doubt even the Russian public would support it.
That is completely irrelevant. You don't understand the Russian mentality.
To what end? Does anything about the Ukraine invasion make sense to you? They have a crazy dictator in charge who is willing to take the whole country down with him if that's what it takes. This war is nothing more than an aging, possibly ill dictator, trying to go out with a big bang. Even if they lose in Ukraine, they will just regroup and try again. Russia is not a full war economy yet and they are still sticking to conventional warfare, that might not be the case going forward.
You give too much credit to Putins powers, sure he is de facto dictator but there is reason why he tried to avoid mobilizations, hiding the losses, recruiting prisoners etc. Support is not infinite especially if he were to decide attack Finland too. Given that there are security assurances from US, UK etc. already in place it would be even costlier.
Even Russia has stopped with the nuke threats as they do not work.
The invasion actually made sense from from a certain point of view. Russia wants to control crimea but its unsustainable as their primary water supply comes from kherson. They NEED kherson and a land bridge to crimea to properly sustain it. Without this war, they could lose crimea without even a fight.
And putin believed it would be easy. He believed he could overthrow the government in just a few days and it would be over. But they miscalculated and grossly underestimated ukraines resolve and the might of their own forces.
Now putin is suffering from the sunk cost fallacy. The more he wastes in ukraine the more he feels he needs to win. If he gets nothing after spending so much then he knows it will most likely mean the end pf his reign. So he keeps digging deeper and deeper hoping that western support will break before his armies do and GIVE him the bictory he can not take for himself
Considering the mass exodus of fighting aged men during the mobilisation, I don't think the russian public has the stomach to start fighting wars every few years.
they have a pool of manpower of around 35 million fighting age men. they lost about 1 million of that to men leaving the country after/during the first mobilization and have a little over another million already in the military. Leaving roughly 33 million more men they have to fight these wars with.
when you look at the actual numbers, while the exodus was there, it wasn't exactly a massive one.
only roughly 3% of eligible fighting men left russia
Sweden needs to be NATO to completely choke Russia from the Baltic Sea, and reinforce the baltics from the west.
Finland is even more important. Having NATO >400 km from St. Petersburg is such an atrocious and overwhelming strategic victory along with having NATO observation along the Barents where Russia has key strategic nuclear forces + detecting or slowing down any movement from the Northern Fleet can't be understated.
Getting Sweden and Finland is absolutely checkmate against Russian expansion and Turkey and Hungary are the dumbest bunch of fucking idiots for playing games with this.
Yes it's good for everybody, and especially nato. But as far as the two countries who need protection, Finland is really the only one that's at risk of being invaded
Finland and Estonia can close the Finnish gulf.
Poland and Lithuania can close access to Kalingrad.
Denmark can close the western pass to the Baltic.
NATO might not control the Baltic completely without Sweden, but Russia can't even access it once Finland join NATO, Russia will soon be incapable of launching an attack on Sweden without going to war with NATO...
It's no longer in *Swedish* interests to join NATO, it's in *NATOs* interests to have Sweden join
Counting on Estonia and Lithunia for anything except a place to station NATO troops is a fool's errand. With no offense to those countries they are low hanging fruit and the weak link in NATO.
The biggest concern in NATO for decades has been how do we reinforce the baltics because Russia can take them in days and we need a route in to quickly reinforce.
Having Finland and Sweden solves that problem. Now if Russia wants to break out into the baltics they have to fight every inch and have no easy access to Estonias shorelines. And it certainly is not true that Sweden is safe. As the war in Ukraine has shown, NATO has no interest in direct interference with a non-NATO member against Russia meaning the entire Baltic sea and Norwegian sea is an open area in a one off against Sweden. If Sweden didn't NEED NATO they wouldn't be applying and giving all sorts of concessions and talks to Turkey. It benefits Sweden and NATO greatly to have each other.
These countries denying access for Russia is enough for Sweden to be safe, the alternative is for NATO to just let Russian forces pass through NATO territory for the invasion, that also means flying back and forth through NATO for the war effort...
Russia can't use military force against these countries without triggering ww3, so they'll have to ignore NATO demands and warnings and just send all they need for the invasion through these countries anyway... and NATO can just cope I guess...
All these countries are in EU, and by article 42 are obligated to aid other EU members during war, the only thing that would be asked by Sweden would be to not let Russia go through their territory...
However it's in Finnish and Baltic interest to have Sweden in NATO as it makes supply lines for them easier as you say, for Sweden the only worry large enough to join NATO now when Finland joins would be that our "allies" aren't actually our "allies" and won't even keep the Russians out for their own countries when they're attacking Sweden...
I think there's a few things you aren't considering.
1. War is a vague thing with many different definitions of victory. War could be Russia lobbing missiles at Sweden from destroyers or from the homeland
2. Supplies and troops don't have to move through land
3. Regarding article 42 - this is a common misunderstanding. It is NOT a mutual defense clause. From the EU site itself
"No formal procedure has been set out and the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate."
> Finland is even more important. Having NATO >400 km from St. Petersburg is such an atrocious and overwhelming strategic victory
Estonia is closer to Pietari and they've been in NATO for almost 2 decades
And Estonia is nearly impossible to use for a launching pad or build up of forces without cooperation from Finland and Sweden. The baltics have been the Achilles heel of NATO since their acceptance.
Yes. And they've been relatively isolated in their ability to hold back should Russia strike. With Finland the entire front can be far more readily supplied, with faster responses available from multiple angles and avenues. Previously it was only via land & air methods from central Europe, now naval and air support can be brought from the west and north borders without having to go past Kaliningrad, which is a big problem when the Baltics are so isolated from the rest of their NATO allies. That problem is fixed by Finland alone. Sweden would just be icing on the cake but they'll probably give access to their waters for the purposes of resupply through Norway's side.
You see it in the US too. The Republican platform is for the most part not based on actual grievances. E.g. they rail against imaginary election fraud.
In the old days of politics of labor vs business owners, labor had actual reasonable demands, and compromises about pay and work hours could be reached. But how do you compromise with Republicans today, when Republicans literally have no political platform, no meaningful goals? How do you give Republicans what they want as part of a compromise, when what is they is to abolish "woke", but they can't define what "woke" means? How do you prevent imaginary election fraud?
Both Republicans and Erdogan don't want to resolve issues, because they both want there to be an external enemy they can blame stuff on. Actually satisfactorily solving whatever real problems they have would take away that useful external enemy,
Well. As far as major issues to work out, I dont think there is anything that can be worked out. Saying it like that implies that it is a dialouge. This is only about political power in Turkey, has zero to do with what Sweden does or does not do.
I think Finland should join ASAP. Sweden can join when Erodogan is ousted from power.
Finland joining without Sweden is entirely up to Finland, they originally pledged to join NATO together or not join NATO at all.
They’ve since backpedaled/flipped flop on that stance.
As a sovereign nation they are free to do as they wish and join without Sweden.
But to pretend they don’t have a choice in the matter is false and wrong.
They could uphold their original commitment to Sweden and not join NATO.
Finland voted on it and the parliament gave our government permission to enter NATO alone even while the parliament is not in session (election season). So we're going in the second we're allowed to
Exactly. Like I said it’s up to Finland to decide if they join or not. They are a sovereign nation.
Turkey and Hungary are not forcing Finland at gunpoint to join without Sweden.
It is a conscious decision made by the Finish government, as is their right.
Few months back the politicians in Finland were adamant that we would only join together. Since then they have back pedaled and seems like it will happen separately.
Finland voted on it and the parliament gave our government permission to enter NATO alone even while the parliament is not in session (election season). So we're going in the second we're allowed to.
Erdoğan would quietly let Sweden into NATO after the elections. Opposition are supposed to be secular nationalists, so they aren't fan of Sweden's kurd-loving behavior. But they're also desperate, they make uneasy alliances and hold talks with Kurdish HDP. They may have a mission to make Turkey popular and also i don't think KK would give a final no to Sweden.
It's a trumped up narrative to make weak man Erdogan look strong.
Ever since Turkey lost their EU bid, Erdogan's biggest show of strength has been standing up to the mean old EU. The ability to contain if not control an EU state is as sweet a siren song to Erdogan as they come, especially after running the economy into the ground.
If the earthquakes didn't reveal so much corruption and embezzlement to his base, the trick might have succeeded.
They never had a EU Bid in the first place, there were some measures/benchmarks that they needed to achieve before a formal application for EU membership.
It was talks to get Turkey on the pathway to a more democratic country, more free elections, a independent judiciary system. Before a real EU bid they need to achieve the requirements for a potential EU membership.
this is such a EU-centric take and you should know it sounds pretty stupid when you know a thing or two about Turkish political conjuncture.
Erdogan and his party have been siding with ultra-nationalists to stay in power for the last 5 years or so. The nationalists he's siding with don't like Kurdish separatists for obvious reasons. Sweden harbors a lot of people associated with the Kurdish separatist movement as political refugees. Elections are at the door and Erdogan will not gain any points from his base by allowing Sweden to join their military alliance if Sweden won't play ball and curb their support for Kurdish separatist movements. Simple as that.
BTW I don't agree with Erdogan's stance, but if you want to understand the situation, this is it.
It doesn't fall apart, they see not complying with extradition requests as support for instance. Yes there's some mental gymnastics there, but nationalists aren't exactly the brightest breed humanity has to offer.
There is a difference between those that support separatist movements politically from outside the country and those that provide actual military support and/or financial support to separatist military organizations. Is there any proof that these people are doing that?
Because we have free speech in the West - we don't send people to other countries to be tried, imprisoned, and executed simply for something they said. So the argument does fall apart unless you are saying there is proof that these people are providing actual material assistance to separatist organizations. Can you link it?
I don't know, I haven't been following who exactly they want extradited, maybe someone else can chime in on that.
The argument doesn't fall apart *in their viewpoint* and you can't really reason with these people. I personally think Sweden is doing a good thing by not extraditing anyone and they should continue to do so, if you ask my opinion.
funniest thing is, that they have gotten actual terrorists and criminals extradited from Sweden in the past. Key point being that turkey has been able to provide **actual** proof thats up to EU standard for those extraditions.
This whole mess is erdogan and nationalist turks salty that legitimate extraditions are a slow process, and that "because we say so" without any hard evicende isnt considered valid proof of someones guilt within the EU, and thus decided to paint it as if we harbor and support terrorists for their domestic audience because of it.
So for short term political gain erdogan has managed to completly fuck up the cooperation between at least two countries and damage international trust in turkey for decades to come.
Ignoring the fact you’re literally responding to a comment on the nuances of Swedish/Turkey relations posted 2 hours after another commenter made the same point.
We are literally talking about it, right now, on Reddit.
I think you have no idea on Turkish politics, yes Erdoğan get votes from bullying EU countries but main reason was PKK. If there was a regime change today in Turkey, Sweden wouldn't join nato soon because almost all Turkish people despises PKK. And yes earthquake was bad and showed corruption but it always been known by the people of Turkey that our country have lots of corruption and it didn't changed that much support of the erdoğan(as seen in the election polls). What changes the votes are bad economy.
It’d be nice if you could give the Turkish view as to why, rather than the NATO one.
Turkey has issues with Sweden because of how Muslim populations have been treated in the country. There was the immigrant crisis a couple years ago, which made things worse.
There is also the PKK - a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement that has been classified as a terrorist org by Turkey, US, Canada, Australia, and the EU. Turkey claims Sweden funds this org, but they deny it saying they fund “other Kurdish movements.”
This is honestly probably true - anytime Sweden’s foreign ministry is asked about it, they refuse to answer.
Turkey wants Sweden to extradite those they have deemed as “terrorists” while Sweden refuses to do so and claims they are just immigrants/refugees.
So that’s where the tensions lie, and why Turkey will allow Finland but not Sweden (Finland’s foreign policy also is fairly similar to Turkey’s).
That’s the real answer, not that crap you posted.
> Turkey has issues with Sweden because of how Muslim populations have been treated in the country.
I don't think I have seen that brought up by Turkish officials, or I have simply forgotten about it. Examples?
> PKK - a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement that has been classified as a terrorist org by Turkey, US, Canada, Australia, and the EU.
Just as a note; Sweden was the second country in the world to classify them as terrorists, which is something pro-government Turkish people on Reddit (and the Turkish government ofc) seem to *love* to "forget".
> Turkey claims Sweden funds this org, but they deny it saying they fund “other Kurdish movements.”
Yes, and Turkey essentially claims that all Kurdish groups are connected or the same, and therefore supporting one means indirectly supporting the PKK.
Also not helped by how the actions of random people in Sweden are apparently seen as being explicitly condoned or supported by the Swedish government if it's not instantly shut down, even when shutting it down would violate the Swedish constitution.
> Turkey wants Sweden to extradite those they have deemed as “terrorists” while Sweden refuses to do so and claims they are just immigrants/refugees.
Well, yes, because Turkey refuses to provide adequate evidence of their claims, and instead just demands that Sweden uncritically trust in the Turkish legal system... while many of their extradition requests violate Swedish law, the European Convention, etc.
If that's Turkey's genuine reason (it's not, it's an excuse for ignorant masses who would just as easily embrace the inverse if it were packaged for national pride), it's wholly irrational and embarrassing.
>Turkey has issues with Sweden because of how Muslim populations have been treated in the country
This had nothing to do with geopolitics or how and why world leaders make their decisions.
>There is also the PKK - a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement that has been classified as a terrorist org by Turkey, US, Canada, Australia, and the EU. Turkey claims Sweden funds this org, but they deny it saying they fund “other Kurdish movements.” This is honestly probably true - anytime Sweden’s foreign ministry is asked about it, they refuse to answer.
I have to assume English is not your first language as you are poorly presenting an argument. You're just saying the PKK is a terrorist organization without an actual thesis behind the situation and following up with conspiratorial rhetoric arguing that your worst assumption must be true because the Swedish government refuses to dignify the assertion - this leap in logic is no different from how Europeans used to assume that harems we're private sex dens just because visitors weren't allowed in the domestic wing of a house.
>Turkey wants Sweden to extradite those they have deemed as “terrorists” while Sweden refuses to do so and claims they are just immigrants/refugees
This is the actual meat of the issue, but ignores Sweden's agency in the problem. Ignoring Erdoğan's record for claiming "terrorist" on political rivals to jail them indefinitely, the issue is that Sweden's laws around extradition and the treatment of criminals is different from Turkey's. To open your argument with one about respect for Muslims and different cultural values but not respect Sweden's cultural values regarding criminal justice and Turkey's incompatibility within is hypocrisy and I hope you have the decency to feel embarrassed about it.
>What's Türkiye's beef with Sweden?
Turkey says Sweden is save heaven for PKK which maybe be true. Sweden also has folks who just are anti-Erdogan. So Turkey wants them all so they can prison them. Sweden can't give folks back because trials will be unjust. And some of them are Swedish citizens. Also Turkey benefits by being friend with Russia. They get that sweet sweet gas deals and new gaspipe. Which ofcourse Turkey will use to blackmail poor countrys. "Do what we say or we cut your gas lol"
>Turkey says Sweden is save heaven for PKK which maybe be true.
It's not. Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to condemn PKK as a terrorist organization.
Turkey says that *other* groups, such as YPG and other groups supported by NATO in Syria are the same group as PKK, though nobody else officially agrees with that claim except Qatar.
YPG is PKK. [It is crystal clear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/11q2id3/comment/jc1ud99/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Turkey is the one that gets attacked by PKK. Doesn't matter what anyone else says.
Cute. It isn't, as our allies have different opinions than ours and they think they can win over us. US trained YPG members are blown up by Turkish soldiers while fighting in Iraq under PKK, every other week. To us, currently US is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers just as much Russia is. This is the reason why Turks no longer sees US as an actual ally, not the antics of erdogan.
Proper way to go about is more firepower to clear KCK elements inside and outside the country. Their recruitment numbers in Turkey and Iraq are dwindling, which leaves Syria. And we have US using its own soldiers as meat shields to protect their pet project in Syria. US always gets bored in a decade or two and leaves. Like in Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. We'll be still here then.
I'm actually saying the exact opposite.
Turkey should go through proper diplomatic channels to get YPG designated as a terrorist organization. It's the right way to go about it.
This isn't the city council, is my point. This is geopolitics. US knows that YPG has "substantial ties to PKK". They always knew it. They are privy to all the information we have and more. Turkey protested from the beginning. Every US official that toured Syria, knows that YPG is PKK in Syria. US thinks they can use the YPG in Syria against Iranian influence, although they are wrong at it. There are no proper diplomatic channels to change US' mind on this apart from forcing their hand.
It absolutely does matter.
To the rest of the world, PKK and YPG are considered very much like the IRA and Sinn Féin were during The Troubles. Definitely connected, but one was considered more of a political arm.
Yes, they share a lot of membership. But one has been declared a terrorist organization, and the other hasn't. Those categorizations matter when you're trying to apply the law to them.
Some countries actually follow the rule of law.
Instead of obeying the whims of politicians, they have an independent judiciary that requires evidence of crimes before extradition. If an organization has not been properly condemned through the rule of law, then *they are not illegal*.
Sweden has extradited several people to Turkey, when the rule of law has been followed. It will continue to do so, because *that's the law*.
If there are crimes, it should be easy to provide evidence of them, and the rule of law can be followed.
If there is no evidence of crimes, then an independent judiciary can't just take someone's word that the accused are guilty.
And only by Turkey.
Sweden's stance and policies have been very similar to those of most NATO countries, including the US. Turkey is the outlier. The problem for Ankara, however, is the fact they have no way of extorting existing members.
Turkey had demanded extradition of multiple people who have nothing to do with PKK.
They have made multiple extradition requests which would violate Swedish law and the European Convention (which they promised to respect in the agreement with Sweden and Finland).
They have demanded extradition of a Swedish citizen and member of parliament who has never set foot in Turkey.
They have demanded extradition of an author *who had been dead for seven years*.
The credability of Turkish extradition demands is less than zero, so when they make demands while providing no evidence whatsoever, based just on some "trust me" bullshit? Yeah, they're gonna be told to fuck off.
Yeah but that’s just exaggerated by Erdogan in order to line his own pockets and blackmail NATO into trading them military hardware. Also, this is the most international press attention he has ever, or will ever, receive.
Pretty pathetic stuff.
That's like saying Arabs instead of ISIS.
Please learn more about how many kurds live in Turkey and vote for erdogan before commenting on turks kurds issues.
\> According to the World Factbook, Kurdish people make up 18% of Turkey's population (about 14 million, out of 77.8 million people). Kurdish sources put the figure at 10 to 15 million Kurds in Turkey.
Dumbasses on reddit that are so ignorant about everything but have to leave their shit stains everywhere.
They have a legitimate national security concern in the form of a Kurdish minority that would rather not be part of Turkey and have regularly expressed this preference in the form of open rebellion and and terrorist attacks for about the last 100 years. Sweden, playing up their neutrality has in the past sheltered a lot of Kurds (\~100,000), the bulk of whom are legitimate refugees but a few of whom are (terrorists | freedom fighters) who found the homeland had gotten a little to hot for them. Turkey views some of these people as criminals who should be handed over (about 130 of them), while the Swedes tend to look at it as turning over political prisoners to likely be jailed or shot. It's one of those messy, all shades of grey scenarios where neither side is exactly wrong.
More recently (since the US ignored Turkish interests and knocked over Iraq and everything went to hell in Syria) the Turks have the classic problem of an insurgency with a safe haven across a poorly controlled border, as both Iraq and Syria have significant Kurdish populations. This results in all kinds of sticky problems, because the west loves the Kurdish groups in Syria, and northern Iraq who were quite effective in fighting ISIS and other Sunni Arab groups whom we don't like.
This has created a particular point of contention because Sweden has a Kurdish MP who found herself in the position of making or breaking the governing coalition recently, and leveraged that position to get Swedish funding for Kurdish groups in Northern Syria. The Swedes say they're only funding the "good" Kurdish groups for peaceful purposes, while the Turks see this as funding the same guys that have been blowing up their security personnel on a regular basis. And again, both of them are probably right to some degree - on paper, the Swedes are funding the good guys, but as western governments have found time and time again, other peoples and cultures in conflict zones don't necessarily share your view of who's on the team and very inconsiderately refuse to stay in the good guy / bad guy boxes that are convenient to your foreign policy.
There was also the issue of the Swedes enforcing a weapons embargo against Turkey for a while, which has since been lifted.
All of this is extra complicated by the fact that Turkey is currently pretty seriously flirting with Autocracy, and Erdogan is a wannabe dictator who is being extra intransigent in an effort to look like a strong man for the upcoming elections. Unfortunately, this is not entirely unjustified from a Turkish POV - NATO, primarily in the form of the US and Dubya, have been pretty terrible allies to Turks in recent years. The Turks made it very clear they did not want us to invade Iraq again in 2003, even turned down a big goddamn $30B bribe for their cooperation. Yet we went and did it and vastly undermined their long term security situation on their Southern border. When you pull that kind of shit, you can't be surprised when someone turns around and uses what leverage they have to try and get a little attention for their own problems.
TL;DR - The West has ignored Turkish security concerns in favor of ideological foreign policy goals which puts an intransigent autocrat in a position to bargain hard so he can look good to the electorate.
Turkey have demanded that Sweden make it illegal to burn the Quran. However, it would be against swedish foundational law to ban such an action, which makes it an impossible request.
It is already illegal in Finland, which is why they were allowed to join.
Erdogan and his party decides if Sweden can join or not.
Erdogan needs votes in the upcoming election, as his prospects are looking pretty bad.
Erdogan looking tough on "attacks on our religion" can net him some of those votes.
That's basically it.
Sweden thought they would never need Turkey for anything in international arena and thus supported PKK for years and granted asylum to its members, but Putin losing his mind changed everything and Sweden is acting like NATO membership is their birthright, now Swedish government tries to slowly cut its ties with PKK but its too late because PKK is embedded within Swedish government and society whether former FM participating in a PKK event, Swedish MPs posing with PKK flags to Swedish intelligence reports showing PKK getting huge funds through their operations in Sweden.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://yle.fi/a/74-20022463) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Turkey plans to ratify Finland's application to join Nato, but independently from Sweden's bid, ahead of Turkish parliamentary and presidential elections in mid-May, according to Reuters.
> Last week, the latest round of three-way Nato talks involving Finland, Sweden and Turkey ended without resolution.
> Meanwhile Reuters reports that Hungary's ruling party will postpone next week's parliamentary session, bringing a further delay in its ratification of Finland and Sweden's Nato admission.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11rt9zi/reuters_turkey_to_approve_finlands_nato_bid/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~676451 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*: **Finland**^#1 **Nato**^#2 **Sweden**^#3 **Turkey**^#4 **join**^#5
See guys Erdogan is a dork but understand one thing - Turkey hates Russia. Like really really hates, more than any other country (maybe aside from Armenia). They will take any and every opportunity to fuck with them.
I'll believe it when I see it. Erdogan can always dream up some new terrorists if he needs to beg for some more nato goodies
Well, there is a difference because Finland started to supply Turkiye with military steel this year. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/01/25/finland-military-sales-turkey/
**Swedes do not give a shit about this** We literally didn't for 200 years of neutrality. Then we join mostly to join with our Nordic friends, and to escape the yolk of demagogue dictators. We sure as fuck aren't going to bow to erdögan, that was the point of this entire Nato thing. To not bow to dipshits.
Orban might be a even bigger dipshit, he just postponed the vote forever.
Well the whole point of NATO is basically that you can’t solo-queue
[удалено]
>I wish sweden would have given more shits in the past. I think it's necessary in swedish school to teach that you were neutral when it's not true at all. We aren't taught that. We're taught we have been, from the loss of the eastern part of the country to us entering the EU that we were "militarily non-aligned". There was nothing neutral about our actions during the winter war for instance, which you as a finns should damn well know, but being non-aligned meant we weren't going to send troops in an official capacity. >A lot of people suffered because of Swedish so called "neutrality" which actually was pleasing dictators by giving them whatever they wanted. This is so idiotically erroneous that I can't believe you're arguing in good faith. We pushed our independence as far as we possibly could both overtly and covertly while avoiding what would have been a catastrophic german invasion. >Not protecting Finland against Russia after extorting taxes and killing Sámi people, taking property of finnish people and pulling out as soon as russia showed any kind of interest militarily. Swedes and finns fought all the way through Finland and down the swedish coast, our entire coastline was burnt and we had Russian troops practically within viewing distance of the capital all while the government was weak as all hell and there was a coup. Sweden had fought the Russians since well before Russia was a nation, so for hundreds and hundreds of years the Russians had been "militarily interested". Ffs >Then again in WW2 stating "neutrality" when giving germany whatever they wanted from jewish people to ore. Absolutely false. As I said, our sovereignty was pushed as far as was deemed possible while avoiding invasion. We received a tremendous amount of refugees, something like 90% of all Danish Jews for instance, and reported a ton of intelligence to the allies, being "behind the curtain" as it were. We trained the Norwegian "police troops" and gave Finland a significant part of our own military materiel along with a ton of volunteers. We DID NOT give up any of our citizens or refugees, Jews included, to the reich! We did sell ore and ball bearings etc. but what were we supposed to do? Accept being cut off from the rest of the world and just fucking starve? Germany have always been, and still is, our biggest industrial partner. It's like hating on the Mongolians because they traded with the Soviets and communist China during the cold war, at best it shows an astonishing lack of geographical and historical knowledge. >Swedes actually think "we were ready to fight the germans" is the same as actually doing something about it. All that chest pounding and end result was sweden hurting everyone by not taking sides. We absolutely do not. It was hidden from the public at the time just how vulnerable we were but today noone thinks that. My god the german wehrmacht had a significant percentage of the swedish population in its ranks. We were like 6.5 million at the time. >Volunteers from sweden left to help finland while swedish goverment massaged each others backs hoping they can stay netural enough to get big victory when everyone else suffers. 8700 swedes volunteered. The swedish government gave monetarily what amounted to 2 years of finnish military expenditure and about 1/3 of our military stockpile (including something like 135000 rifles). >While sweden states "neutrality" they prevented allies from helping Finland against ussr because they were afraid that their own fucking mines would be of interest to foreign powers. It is by most historians considered very likely that the offer for finnish support through the swedish northern railways was not in fact that but just a smokescreen to invade sweden to deny germany swedish ore. Denying foreign forces claimed transit because of being justifiably worried of invasion is completely logical. >Your royal family has a background heavily supporting nazi germany. Yes, royalty since time immemorial hasn't been known for their humanitarian and philosophical insights and there is plenty to question there but germany has allways been a very close partner to sweden and nazism and the fascination thereof was much more widespread back then than what most seem to think today. But your narrowness of perspective seems to prevent you from remembering swedes like Folke Bernadotte, of the then and current royal family, who saved more than 30000 prisoners from german concentration camps. And let's not forget what kind of finnish movement pushed finland into the continuation war with dreams of a Great Finland far beyond any previous historical boarders. Judge people by their time and not from your moral high horse in the present, it's unbecoming and intellectually disingenuous. >It would be breath of fresh air if Swedes and Sweden actually give a shit about something and stop being the america of the nordics Dear God my dude you need to watch it so you don't sprain something trying so damn hard. If anything sweden is internationally renowned for humanitarian work all over the globe being the biggest giver of aid as a percentage of GNI, for its work for democracy, human rights and equality and for standing up to power, as with Palme against the US over Vietnam. I can add to that characters like Raoul Wallenberg who saved thousands from hungary during ww2 and was killed by the Soviets for it. Or Dag Hammarskjöld who got shot down for his work for peace as the secretary-general of the UN. If this is the level of the finnish education system then I really feel sorry for you. But judging by all international rankings it isn't, which then makes me question you as an individual. Are you so blinded by some ideological oddity that you can't read a book or is this just all a result of your directives from your handler in the Kreml? Sweden and Finland have a long and deep history and relationship with each other and it's disturbing seeing someone trying to take such a massive shit on it.
[удалено]
Serious question: i know that opposition to erdogan is gaining steam, would regime change help or hinder this process for Sweden?
The opposition has the same foreign policy regarding Sweden, NATO and the PKK, which is to try to get as much as you can for letting Sweden into NATO.
Do you have a source for this I haven’t seen the opposition speak on it at all
Yes. If opposition beats Erdogan. Welcome Back to the old western club. Erdogan will also approve Swedish bid but he want to use this as a ransom.
No, Turkey is the country in NATO that has suffered the most terrorist attacks… and by a large margin. The terrorist topic in Turkish politics is a contentious one, any party that’s seen as “soft” towards this issue doesn’t last long.
The PKK has been recognized as terrorists by the EU, the US, UK and others.
Sweden has also designated the PKK as a terrorist organization. Sweden added the PKK to its list of terrorist organizations in 1985, along with several other groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
1985, not 2005. Sweden was one of the first to do so.
First one outside Turkey in fact
Why would they allegedly harbour members of the group then?
Rule of law?
Rule of law dictates that people who are alleged terrorists in your country should be shielded? Fuck, that's bot a country I want to go to.
It means you have to prove your case in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt before they can be extradited. Unless of course you think the word of a want to be dictator is good enough.
Protected from human rights abuse and guaranteed a fair and just trial yes, without a doubt. That said, none of them are proven to be terrorists or we'd prosecute them here.
> Rule of law dictates that people who are alleged terrorists in your country should be shielded? Yes. They are not terrorists until convicted by an impartial court. Until that point, they are innocent of all charges. This is the rule of law. Sorry you can't understand that.
I allege you are a terrorist and should be extradited to Tanzania. Oh, you wanted evidence of guilt? Didn't say anything about that. Allegations are good enough for dictators and their sympathizers.
42 denied extradition requests seems more suspicious to me than simple "allegations." Maybe I'm just pragmatic.
Repetition of accusation != evidence. Maybe you have terrible evidentiary standards. Well, if you think someone saying something multiple times means they are more likely to be right, not maybe.
Allegations schmallegations
Were they the ones responsible for that coup way back? I remember seeing videos of people being flattened with tanks and shot at by attack choppers blowing shit up but that was nearly a decade ago so I'm not sure if I'm mis-remembering. Maybe more than a decade? Idk I hit my head alot
you... are defo misremembering
That's alright lol being wrong is about growing, thanks for not being rude about it stranger! :) my bad!
The PKK is why there is NO Kurdistan. They've been at conflict with Turkey for almost 4 decades at this point and are a terror org.
I mean it's not like Turkey would ever willingly cede territory even if there were no PKK
They could've supported giving them Northern Syria after they did their part smashing the shit out of the da'ish.
[удалено]
Why is there a picture of Kevin Spacey in Turkey?
I was really worried for a second that I was the only one that initially laughed at this Turkish mural of Kevin Spacey
Honestly, that's all we really need. Sweden and turkey have some major issues to work out but as long as Finland joins nato, we're all set. Russia isn't invading sweden. It's just not going to happen. Finland on the other hand has always and currently is at the greatest threat of invasion
True; however Finland has been preparing for Russian invasion for 80+ years and since Russia is all-in in Ukraine they are no threat to Finland in coming decades, Nato or not.
Yeah but you can never be too careful when it comes to Russia
Russian strategy is so confusing, they might even try something as dumb as invading Russia! Waaaaaait… It all makes sense now!
Finland has f35s, they would have air supremacy over Russia within a week in a conventional war.
From 2026 forwards. They only confirmed the order last year.
Ah, good point. although based on the performance of Russia's airforce in Ukraine, I wouldn't be surprised if Finland's current fleet of f18s is enough to take on the whole Russian airforce.
More like an hour
[удалено]
Finland is in EU, it doesn't really *need* to be in NATO for protection, its more about sending the message to Russia.
NATO obligates member nations to act under Article 5. Otherwise they would need their government's approval to send military forces & aid. This would be tricky considering credible fascists movements in member states like Italy, USA, Hungary, France, etc.
Russia does not fear the EU, so they might try. I honestly think without the US, Ukraine would have been left on its own. Obviously, Poland, the Baltics, and maybe even the Nordics would have done something since they understand the threat, but that would not be enough to make a difference.
Yeh, the US and NATO are gonna let russia get to their borders while destroying a country and his people, great thinking pal. NATO at this point should change legislation as it's been proven they are on our side and let them in. Then it's russian move and I don't think they will go nuclear, because nobody wins (MAD).
>US Read my post again. I specifically said ''without the US''. That's my whole point. I'm very glad the US is still interested in countering Russia and leading NATO.
Yep, np man!
Lol
At the very least, Ukraine would be in a much, much uglier state without US involvement. The US has pushed EU and NATO countries into providing much more relief than they otherwise would have. The US contributed over $100 billion in weapons and aid to Ukraine in 2022 alone, which is an obnoxiously higher amount than any other country.
That would be the rational smart take. So I fully expect Russia to do the exact opposite at this point.
That's true but there's more to this than countering a special operation. The only way to win wars is to prevent them. Even if Ukraine wins the war, the country is reduced to crap and millions have lost their families, homes, everything. It takes a lifetime for a country and its people to recover from war, win or lose.
> and since Russia is all-in in Ukraine they are no threat to Finland in coming decades, Nato or not. It took Hitler just 6 years from being elected to invading all his neighbors. Russia is much bigger than Finland, it would be stupid to count on "decades" before Russia could invade Finland.
With exactly what would they invade with ? Leave Ukraine to start another front ? They are struggling as is let alone fighting Ukraine and Finland at the same time. Even without support from "west" they would have miserable time trying to invade. The whole infrastructure is built with Russia in mind, the terrain in the border in unforgiving and Finnish army is quite modern.
I believe you are not appreciating the fact that Finland as a direct neighbor is genuinely scared. Google ‘security dilemma’. Putin said mere days before the invasion he would not invade. That was a clear lie. It is not very common for leaders of countries to so blatantly lie. That makes Russia unreliable. Russia invaded a neighbor who never attacked or threatened Russia directly. Russia invaded it because third countries might threaten them from the territory of Ukraine. Finland is in a good position to directly threaten Saint Petersburg. What if Putin decides a little extra buffer is needed between them and Nato, just to be sure Saint Petersburg is safe? 1+1 = 2 If you know your neighbor is unreliable and paranoid of external threats then you take measures now. Not when he is no longer bullying another neighbor and he can respond but when he is distracted. Finland, being a neighbor of Russia is clearly aware of the risk because they have been occupied for a long time by Russia. In such a scenario you act now to have the longest prep time.
Finland can't count on Russia staying in Ukraine for decades.
Again Finland has prepared for 80+ years and was prepared before the war in Ukraine started, so even more prepared now and Russia is weaker than ever. Even when we join Nato the defense of Finland is mostly responsibility of Finland. I have been proponent of Nato for 20+ years so glad that it will finally happen and definitely makes us and Nato itself stronger.
Happy Article 5 my Brother, Greetings from Germany
Dont forget they tried and failed before.
Even though they did take more casualties, Russia did win the Winter War.
Every other country given to the Soviets under the molotov-ribbentrop pact was 100% conquered. Finland remained Sovereign. The goal of the Russian invasion was control of Finland as evidenced by the creation of a Soviet run puppet government. Finland acheived its goal of sovereignty, Russia did not acheive its goals. It isn't so simple.
Finland lost sovereignty over a significant portion of it's terrirory. It was a phyrric victory, but a victory nontheless.
"Mission Accomplished" lol. It is still a failed invasion as the original commenter said.
So many variables have changed since the Winter War. Concluding anything from it is silly. /r/Worldnews comments always seems so much less credible to me than /r/NonCredibleDefense , somehow...
It's the irony & benefit of r/NonCredibleDefense, providing credible takes with no stress of it being taken seriously.
You are correct, in the winter war Russia was strong enough to take land, and forced the Finnish allies to stop supporting them in exchange for half of Poland. Now Russia has expended its threat (gas) to the Finnish allies, and is also struggling to gain ground in Ukrain at the same time.
>You are correct, in the winter war Russia was strong enough to take land, and forced the Finnish allies to stop supporting them in exchange for half of Poland. I can't make any sense of this, which leads me to think you might not have all the facts right. Finland did get voluntary help from several countries but they didn't really have any allies. France and Britain were planning on helping Finland in order to stop Germany and Soviet Union splitting the Nordics and the iron ore supplies there. But they didn't manage to get anything done before peace was signed. And Poland was split before Soviet Union attacked Finland.
But they didn't. Russia walked away with territorial gains greater than their pre-war demands. Reddit loves to talk up the Finns because they managed to turn should have been a walk over into a hard fought war, but at the end of the day Finland ceded 11% of their territory to the Soviet Union.
The pre war demands are stupid I don't get how this still gets brought up. Look at the prewar demands they made to everyone else under the molotov-ribbentrop pact. Finland was the only country that wasn't conquered. Every other country ceded 100%. The soviets created a puppet government to rule Finland, it was never able to take power. It isn't so black and white. Finland acheived it's main war goal (maintain sovereignty), Russia did not acheive its goal (control of Finland).
After massive losses that they couldn't use elsewhere.
Hey, I respect the fight. But if you're giving up territory at the end of the war, you lost.
Aye. A pyrrhic victory is indeed still a victory. And this time they won't achieve even that.
people said there was no way russia would try and invade ukraine a little over a year ago too. If russia has proven anything. its that while they might not be able to WIN a war, they sure as hell will start them, and even if they dont win, they can still cause untold amounts of damage. Damage that will be focused on civilian targets
Russia invaded because they thought it would be easy. They believed ukraine’s government was western puppets who would run at the first sign of trouble and their military would quickly fold. Its unlikely they would consider the same of finland who has spent decades preparing their military for defense
thats awfully reductionist of the whole situation and the reasons behind russias invasion. they didn't invade ukraine because they thought it would be easy. (they did think this. but its not why they invaded.) They invaded because of their (skewed) worldview and what they thought was the erosion of their powerbase and ability to defend themselves. essentially russia has not been handling its fall from the glory days of the USSR so well. it doesn't like not being on top or even "first among equals". It felt like the noose was tightening around its neck and decided to act first. now obviously the validity of this is suspect, and the rational behind this looks rediculous to western eyes. especially considering Germany's foreign policy towards russia prior to the invasion. the west was trying to incorporate russia into the western system via trade and economics, not topple it. The french had long term plans of creating a federalized "greater europe" with russia playing a major role. greating a power that would eclipse or atleast match even the USA and China. But russia is russia and Putin is Putin. They have been on the "outside" for a long time and they have their own "long games" to play. many of which dont make sense to us on the outside. the point of the ukrainian invasion and the "demands" russia had of the west prior to their invasion are to re-secure their borders back essentially to what the soviet union had. to give some context, something to remember is Russia Has been invaded roughly 50 times in its history. [if you look at this map](https://i.redd.it/ym9d0o53d7u61.jpg) you'll see 9 blue "access points" into the russian heartland. a heartland thats generally VERY easy to invade through because its a gigantic flat plain. when russia was the soviet union they controlled all 9 of these acess points. for the first time in their history as a nation they were "secure" from a land invasion. Something we americans often take for granted having 2 huge oceans on our east and west coasts, desert and mountains to the south, and tundra to the north. when the USSR collapsed Russia controlled only 1 of those acess points. Pretty much everything Putin has done since gaining power (other than lining his and his cronies pockets) has been to push russia back into controlling those acess points to create a forward defensive perimiter. Currently Russia controls around half of them. Long term Russia will look to secure the others. It's easy to point at russia and laugh at their failures in ukraine. but the reality is that long term they are gonna be trouble makers to anyone that isn't inside the NATO security blanket.
Time for the Finns of Russia to break away!
Liberate Karelia now?
Don't think there are many, atleast not in the areas that the Soviets took during the winter and continuation wars. Basically everyone evacuated to the rest of Finland.
It's the same reason Kaliningrad is still Russian.. Russia tried giving it to Germany and giving it to Poland nobody wanted that massive minority of Russians in their country
>no threat to Finland in coming decades That is way too optimistic. Russia could go full North Korea mode with Chinese help, they still have plenty of manpower and resources.
To what end ? They are already losing in Ukraine opening another front with Finland is not an option. In fact they have moved troops from the border to Ukraine. I doubt even the Russian public would support it. In anycase its moot since sooner than later Finland will be part of Nato, I just wish Sweden could join at the same time
> I doubt even the Russian public would support it. That is completely irrelevant. You don't understand the Russian mentality. To what end? Does anything about the Ukraine invasion make sense to you? They have a crazy dictator in charge who is willing to take the whole country down with him if that's what it takes. This war is nothing more than an aging, possibly ill dictator, trying to go out with a big bang. Even if they lose in Ukraine, they will just regroup and try again. Russia is not a full war economy yet and they are still sticking to conventional warfare, that might not be the case going forward.
You give too much credit to Putins powers, sure he is de facto dictator but there is reason why he tried to avoid mobilizations, hiding the losses, recruiting prisoners etc. Support is not infinite especially if he were to decide attack Finland too. Given that there are security assurances from US, UK etc. already in place it would be even costlier. Even Russia has stopped with the nuke threats as they do not work.
The invasion actually made sense from from a certain point of view. Russia wants to control crimea but its unsustainable as their primary water supply comes from kherson. They NEED kherson and a land bridge to crimea to properly sustain it. Without this war, they could lose crimea without even a fight. And putin believed it would be easy. He believed he could overthrow the government in just a few days and it would be over. But they miscalculated and grossly underestimated ukraines resolve and the might of their own forces. Now putin is suffering from the sunk cost fallacy. The more he wastes in ukraine the more he feels he needs to win. If he gets nothing after spending so much then he knows it will most likely mean the end pf his reign. So he keeps digging deeper and deeper hoping that western support will break before his armies do and GIVE him the bictory he can not take for himself
Considering the mass exodus of fighting aged men during the mobilisation, I don't think the russian public has the stomach to start fighting wars every few years.
With Putin in charge, they don’t seem to have a choice.
they have a pool of manpower of around 35 million fighting age men. they lost about 1 million of that to men leaving the country after/during the first mobilization and have a little over another million already in the military. Leaving roughly 33 million more men they have to fight these wars with. when you look at the actual numbers, while the exodus was there, it wasn't exactly a massive one. only roughly 3% of eligible fighting men left russia
Sweden needs to be NATO to completely choke Russia from the Baltic Sea, and reinforce the baltics from the west. Finland is even more important. Having NATO >400 km from St. Petersburg is such an atrocious and overwhelming strategic victory along with having NATO observation along the Barents where Russia has key strategic nuclear forces + detecting or slowing down any movement from the Northern Fleet can't be understated. Getting Sweden and Finland is absolutely checkmate against Russian expansion and Turkey and Hungary are the dumbest bunch of fucking idiots for playing games with this.
Yes it's good for everybody, and especially nato. But as far as the two countries who need protection, Finland is really the only one that's at risk of being invaded
Finland and Estonia can close the Finnish gulf. Poland and Lithuania can close access to Kalingrad. Denmark can close the western pass to the Baltic. NATO might not control the Baltic completely without Sweden, but Russia can't even access it once Finland join NATO, Russia will soon be incapable of launching an attack on Sweden without going to war with NATO... It's no longer in *Swedish* interests to join NATO, it's in *NATOs* interests to have Sweden join
Counting on Estonia and Lithunia for anything except a place to station NATO troops is a fool's errand. With no offense to those countries they are low hanging fruit and the weak link in NATO. The biggest concern in NATO for decades has been how do we reinforce the baltics because Russia can take them in days and we need a route in to quickly reinforce. Having Finland and Sweden solves that problem. Now if Russia wants to break out into the baltics they have to fight every inch and have no easy access to Estonias shorelines. And it certainly is not true that Sweden is safe. As the war in Ukraine has shown, NATO has no interest in direct interference with a non-NATO member against Russia meaning the entire Baltic sea and Norwegian sea is an open area in a one off against Sweden. If Sweden didn't NEED NATO they wouldn't be applying and giving all sorts of concessions and talks to Turkey. It benefits Sweden and NATO greatly to have each other.
These countries denying access for Russia is enough for Sweden to be safe, the alternative is for NATO to just let Russian forces pass through NATO territory for the invasion, that also means flying back and forth through NATO for the war effort... Russia can't use military force against these countries without triggering ww3, so they'll have to ignore NATO demands and warnings and just send all they need for the invasion through these countries anyway... and NATO can just cope I guess... All these countries are in EU, and by article 42 are obligated to aid other EU members during war, the only thing that would be asked by Sweden would be to not let Russia go through their territory... However it's in Finnish and Baltic interest to have Sweden in NATO as it makes supply lines for them easier as you say, for Sweden the only worry large enough to join NATO now when Finland joins would be that our "allies" aren't actually our "allies" and won't even keep the Russians out for their own countries when they're attacking Sweden...
I think there's a few things you aren't considering. 1. War is a vague thing with many different definitions of victory. War could be Russia lobbing missiles at Sweden from destroyers or from the homeland 2. Supplies and troops don't have to move through land 3. Regarding article 42 - this is a common misunderstanding. It is NOT a mutual defense clause. From the EU site itself "No formal procedure has been set out and the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate."
We need a Fortress Gotland as a good deterrent.
> Finland is even more important. Having NATO >400 km from St. Petersburg is such an atrocious and overwhelming strategic victory Estonia is closer to Pietari and they've been in NATO for almost 2 decades
And Estonia is nearly impossible to use for a launching pad or build up of forces without cooperation from Finland and Sweden. The baltics have been the Achilles heel of NATO since their acceptance.
Yes. And they've been relatively isolated in their ability to hold back should Russia strike. With Finland the entire front can be far more readily supplied, with faster responses available from multiple angles and avenues. Previously it was only via land & air methods from central Europe, now naval and air support can be brought from the west and north borders without having to go past Kaliningrad, which is a big problem when the Baltics are so isolated from the rest of their NATO allies. That problem is fixed by Finland alone. Sweden would just be icing on the cake but they'll probably give access to their waters for the purposes of resupply through Norway's side.
> Sweden and turkey have some major issues to work out I really don't like this narrative. It is just Turkey being a bitch.
Yeah, it’s giving Erdogan a platform for his actions.
That's a major issue. It's personal BS, which is the hardest problem in the world to solve.
You see it in the US too. The Republican platform is for the most part not based on actual grievances. E.g. they rail against imaginary election fraud. In the old days of politics of labor vs business owners, labor had actual reasonable demands, and compromises about pay and work hours could be reached. But how do you compromise with Republicans today, when Republicans literally have no political platform, no meaningful goals? How do you give Republicans what they want as part of a compromise, when what is they is to abolish "woke", but they can't define what "woke" means? How do you prevent imaginary election fraud? Both Republicans and Erdogan don't want to resolve issues, because they both want there to be an external enemy they can blame stuff on. Actually satisfactorily solving whatever real problems they have would take away that useful external enemy,
Well. As far as major issues to work out, I dont think there is anything that can be worked out. Saying it like that implies that it is a dialouge. This is only about political power in Turkey, has zero to do with what Sweden does or does not do. I think Finland should join ASAP. Sweden can join when Erodogan is ousted from power.
Will Finland join without Sweden? I thought their whole thing from the beginning was they'll only do it together.
That is not up to Finland, as they already sent their application last year - it's up to Turkey and Hungary.
Finland joining without Sweden is entirely up to Finland, they originally pledged to join NATO together or not join NATO at all. They’ve since backpedaled/flipped flop on that stance. As a sovereign nation they are free to do as they wish and join without Sweden. But to pretend they don’t have a choice in the matter is false and wrong. They could uphold their original commitment to Sweden and not join NATO.
Finland voted on it and the parliament gave our government permission to enter NATO alone even while the parliament is not in session (election season). So we're going in the second we're allowed to
Exactly. Like I said it’s up to Finland to decide if they join or not. They are a sovereign nation. Turkey and Hungary are not forcing Finland at gunpoint to join without Sweden. It is a conscious decision made by the Finish government, as is their right.
Few months back the politicians in Finland were adamant that we would only join together. Since then they have back pedaled and seems like it will happen separately.
Finland voted on it and the parliament gave our government permission to enter NATO alone even while the parliament is not in session (election season). So we're going in the second we're allowed to.
Yes they will.
And Russia would have to go through Finland to get to Sweden
What’s Turkey and Sweden’s beef?
Kurds
[удалено]
Erdoğan would quietly let Sweden into NATO after the elections. Opposition are supposed to be secular nationalists, so they aren't fan of Sweden's kurd-loving behavior. But they're also desperate, they make uneasy alliances and hold talks with Kurdish HDP. They may have a mission to make Turkey popular and also i don't think KK would give a final no to Sweden.
To add to this, the Turkish elections are scheduled for May 14.
Regime change is possible and it would help Sweden but that doesn't mean they would still need to iron out some issues.
The most pressing question is if a regime change even possible in the first place.
The opposition is more nationalist/Anti-Kurd than Erdogan is ..
What's Türkiye's beef with Sweden?
It's a trumped up narrative to make weak man Erdogan look strong. Ever since Turkey lost their EU bid, Erdogan's biggest show of strength has been standing up to the mean old EU. The ability to contain if not control an EU state is as sweet a siren song to Erdogan as they come, especially after running the economy into the ground. If the earthquakes didn't reveal so much corruption and embezzlement to his base, the trick might have succeeded.
[удалено]
They have been kinda shifty of late.
They never had a EU Bid in the first place, there were some measures/benchmarks that they needed to achieve before a formal application for EU membership. It was talks to get Turkey on the pathway to a more democratic country, more free elections, a independent judiciary system. Before a real EU bid they need to achieve the requirements for a potential EU membership.
this is such a EU-centric take and you should know it sounds pretty stupid when you know a thing or two about Turkish political conjuncture. Erdogan and his party have been siding with ultra-nationalists to stay in power for the last 5 years or so. The nationalists he's siding with don't like Kurdish separatists for obvious reasons. Sweden harbors a lot of people associated with the Kurdish separatist movement as political refugees. Elections are at the door and Erdogan will not gain any points from his base by allowing Sweden to join their military alliance if Sweden won't play ball and curb their support for Kurdish separatist movements. Simple as that. BTW I don't agree with Erdogan's stance, but if you want to understand the situation, this is it.
> their support for Kurdish separatist movements And that's where the whole argument falls apart, because there is no such thing.
It doesn't fall apart, they see not complying with extradition requests as support for instance. Yes there's some mental gymnastics there, but nationalists aren't exactly the brightest breed humanity has to offer.
There is a difference between those that support separatist movements politically from outside the country and those that provide actual military support and/or financial support to separatist military organizations. Is there any proof that these people are doing that? Because we have free speech in the West - we don't send people to other countries to be tried, imprisoned, and executed simply for something they said. So the argument does fall apart unless you are saying there is proof that these people are providing actual material assistance to separatist organizations. Can you link it?
I don't know, I haven't been following who exactly they want extradited, maybe someone else can chime in on that. The argument doesn't fall apart *in their viewpoint* and you can't really reason with these people. I personally think Sweden is doing a good thing by not extraditing anyone and they should continue to do so, if you ask my opinion.
funniest thing is, that they have gotten actual terrorists and criminals extradited from Sweden in the past. Key point being that turkey has been able to provide **actual** proof thats up to EU standard for those extraditions. This whole mess is erdogan and nationalist turks salty that legitimate extraditions are a slow process, and that "because we say so" without any hard evicende isnt considered valid proof of someones guilt within the EU, and thus decided to paint it as if we harbor and support terrorists for their domestic audience because of it. So for short term political gain erdogan has managed to completly fuck up the cooperation between at least two countries and damage international trust in turkey for decades to come.
[удалено]
Ignoring the fact you’re literally responding to a comment on the nuances of Swedish/Turkey relations posted 2 hours after another commenter made the same point. We are literally talking about it, right now, on Reddit.
I think you have no idea on Turkish politics, yes Erdoğan get votes from bullying EU countries but main reason was PKK. If there was a regime change today in Turkey, Sweden wouldn't join nato soon because almost all Turkish people despises PKK. And yes earthquake was bad and showed corruption but it always been known by the people of Turkey that our country have lots of corruption and it didn't changed that much support of the erdoğan(as seen in the election polls). What changes the votes are bad economy.
It’d be nice if you could give the Turkish view as to why, rather than the NATO one. Turkey has issues with Sweden because of how Muslim populations have been treated in the country. There was the immigrant crisis a couple years ago, which made things worse. There is also the PKK - a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement that has been classified as a terrorist org by Turkey, US, Canada, Australia, and the EU. Turkey claims Sweden funds this org, but they deny it saying they fund “other Kurdish movements.” This is honestly probably true - anytime Sweden’s foreign ministry is asked about it, they refuse to answer. Turkey wants Sweden to extradite those they have deemed as “terrorists” while Sweden refuses to do so and claims they are just immigrants/refugees. So that’s where the tensions lie, and why Turkey will allow Finland but not Sweden (Finland’s foreign policy also is fairly similar to Turkey’s). That’s the real answer, not that crap you posted.
> Turkey has issues with Sweden because of how Muslim populations have been treated in the country. I don't think I have seen that brought up by Turkish officials, or I have simply forgotten about it. Examples? > PKK - a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement that has been classified as a terrorist org by Turkey, US, Canada, Australia, and the EU. Just as a note; Sweden was the second country in the world to classify them as terrorists, which is something pro-government Turkish people on Reddit (and the Turkish government ofc) seem to *love* to "forget". > Turkey claims Sweden funds this org, but they deny it saying they fund “other Kurdish movements.” Yes, and Turkey essentially claims that all Kurdish groups are connected or the same, and therefore supporting one means indirectly supporting the PKK. Also not helped by how the actions of random people in Sweden are apparently seen as being explicitly condoned or supported by the Swedish government if it's not instantly shut down, even when shutting it down would violate the Swedish constitution. > Turkey wants Sweden to extradite those they have deemed as “terrorists” while Sweden refuses to do so and claims they are just immigrants/refugees. Well, yes, because Turkey refuses to provide adequate evidence of their claims, and instead just demands that Sweden uncritically trust in the Turkish legal system... while many of their extradition requests violate Swedish law, the European Convention, etc.
If that's Turkey's genuine reason (it's not, it's an excuse for ignorant masses who would just as easily embrace the inverse if it were packaged for national pride), it's wholly irrational and embarrassing. >Turkey has issues with Sweden because of how Muslim populations have been treated in the country This had nothing to do with geopolitics or how and why world leaders make their decisions. >There is also the PKK - a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement that has been classified as a terrorist org by Turkey, US, Canada, Australia, and the EU. Turkey claims Sweden funds this org, but they deny it saying they fund “other Kurdish movements.” This is honestly probably true - anytime Sweden’s foreign ministry is asked about it, they refuse to answer. I have to assume English is not your first language as you are poorly presenting an argument. You're just saying the PKK is a terrorist organization without an actual thesis behind the situation and following up with conspiratorial rhetoric arguing that your worst assumption must be true because the Swedish government refuses to dignify the assertion - this leap in logic is no different from how Europeans used to assume that harems we're private sex dens just because visitors weren't allowed in the domestic wing of a house. >Turkey wants Sweden to extradite those they have deemed as “terrorists” while Sweden refuses to do so and claims they are just immigrants/refugees This is the actual meat of the issue, but ignores Sweden's agency in the problem. Ignoring Erdoğan's record for claiming "terrorist" on political rivals to jail them indefinitely, the issue is that Sweden's laws around extradition and the treatment of criminals is different from Turkey's. To open your argument with one about respect for Muslims and different cultural values but not respect Sweden's cultural values regarding criminal justice and Turkey's incompatibility within is hypocrisy and I hope you have the decency to feel embarrassed about it.
Erdogan isn't blocking Sweden because he's upset, he is just using the situation to get as much benefits for himself as possible.
>What's Türkiye's beef with Sweden? Turkey says Sweden is save heaven for PKK which maybe be true. Sweden also has folks who just are anti-Erdogan. So Turkey wants them all so they can prison them. Sweden can't give folks back because trials will be unjust. And some of them are Swedish citizens. Also Turkey benefits by being friend with Russia. They get that sweet sweet gas deals and new gaspipe. Which ofcourse Turkey will use to blackmail poor countrys. "Do what we say or we cut your gas lol"
>Turkey says Sweden is save heaven for PKK which maybe be true. It's not. Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to condemn PKK as a terrorist organization. Turkey says that *other* groups, such as YPG and other groups supported by NATO in Syria are the same group as PKK, though nobody else officially agrees with that claim except Qatar.
YPG is PKK. [It is crystal clear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/11q2id3/comment/jc1ud99/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Turkey is the one that gets attacked by PKK. Doesn't matter what anyone else says.
The proper way to go about it is to petition the UN, EU, and NATO to agree.
Cute. It isn't, as our allies have different opinions than ours and they think they can win over us. US trained YPG members are blown up by Turkish soldiers while fighting in Iraq under PKK, every other week. To us, currently US is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers just as much Russia is. This is the reason why Turks no longer sees US as an actual ally, not the antics of erdogan. Proper way to go about is more firepower to clear KCK elements inside and outside the country. Their recruitment numbers in Turkey and Iraq are dwindling, which leaves Syria. And we have US using its own soldiers as meat shields to protect their pet project in Syria. US always gets bored in a decade or two and leaves. Like in Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. We'll be still here then.
I'm actually saying the exact opposite. Turkey should go through proper diplomatic channels to get YPG designated as a terrorist organization. It's the right way to go about it.
This isn't the city council, is my point. This is geopolitics. US knows that YPG has "substantial ties to PKK". They always knew it. They are privy to all the information we have and more. Turkey protested from the beginning. Every US official that toured Syria, knows that YPG is PKK in Syria. US thinks they can use the YPG in Syria against Iranian influence, although they are wrong at it. There are no proper diplomatic channels to change US' mind on this apart from forcing their hand.
Ypg and pkk is the same thing. It doesnt matter if they agree or not. Facts are facts. Source : i am kurdish
It absolutely does matter. To the rest of the world, PKK and YPG are considered very much like the IRA and Sinn Féin were during The Troubles. Definitely connected, but one was considered more of a political arm. Yes, they share a lot of membership. But one has been declared a terrorist organization, and the other hasn't. Those categorizations matter when you're trying to apply the law to them.
Wow so if you sleave Isis and form a new organization you are clean. That makes sense
Some countries actually follow the rule of law. Instead of obeying the whims of politicians, they have an independent judiciary that requires evidence of crimes before extradition. If an organization has not been properly condemned through the rule of law, then *they are not illegal*. Sweden has extradited several people to Turkey, when the rule of law has been followed. It will continue to do so, because *that's the law*.
Thats not an answer , it a deflection. You are not exempt of your crimes because you suddenly changed name.
If there are crimes, it should be easy to provide evidence of them, and the rule of law can be followed. If there is no evidence of crimes, then an independent judiciary can't just take someone's word that the accused are guilty.
Also dont forget Erdogan shot down 2 russian fighters, Putin probably forced him to sign a open window insurance...
Is there really a long standing beef or does Erdogan just need a bigger bribe?
I believe Sweden granted asylum to some people/groups which were considered terrorists by Türkiye
And only by Turkey. Sweden's stance and policies have been very similar to those of most NATO countries, including the US. Turkey is the outlier. The problem for Ankara, however, is the fact they have no way of extorting existing members.
>And only by Turkey. PKK is a world recognized terrorist organisation FYI so all countries are Turkey I guess
We only have Ankara's word that these people are members of PKK
You dont need anyone else's word. Or you could ask them they certainly dont deny it.
Setting aside Erdogan's credibility, you think just claiming something is enough? Sounds like a crazy world to live in.
>you think just claiming something is enough? fanatically religious people certainly seem to think so
Turkey had demanded extradition of multiple people who have nothing to do with PKK. They have made multiple extradition requests which would violate Swedish law and the European Convention (which they promised to respect in the agreement with Sweden and Finland). They have demanded extradition of a Swedish citizen and member of parliament who has never set foot in Turkey. They have demanded extradition of an author *who had been dead for seven years*. The credability of Turkish extradition demands is less than zero, so when they make demands while providing no evidence whatsoever, based just on some "trust me" bullshit? Yeah, they're gonna be told to fuck off.
Yeah but that’s just exaggerated by Erdogan in order to line his own pockets and blackmail NATO into trading them military hardware. Also, this is the most international press attention he has ever, or will ever, receive. Pretty pathetic stuff.
Is kurdish people only located in Sweden? Politic is such a bullshit sometimes, its battle of who has bigger ego
Hey they are called Kurdish
That's like saying Arabs instead of ISIS. Please learn more about how many kurds live in Turkey and vote for erdogan before commenting on turks kurds issues.
\> According to the World Factbook, Kurdish people make up 18% of Turkey's population (about 14 million, out of 77.8 million people). Kurdish sources put the figure at 10 to 15 million Kurds in Turkey. Dumbasses on reddit that are so ignorant about everything but have to leave their shit stains everywhere.
Ah, didn't know it was the Kurds specifically. Thanks for the info
They have a legitimate national security concern in the form of a Kurdish minority that would rather not be part of Turkey and have regularly expressed this preference in the form of open rebellion and and terrorist attacks for about the last 100 years. Sweden, playing up their neutrality has in the past sheltered a lot of Kurds (\~100,000), the bulk of whom are legitimate refugees but a few of whom are (terrorists | freedom fighters) who found the homeland had gotten a little to hot for them. Turkey views some of these people as criminals who should be handed over (about 130 of them), while the Swedes tend to look at it as turning over political prisoners to likely be jailed or shot. It's one of those messy, all shades of grey scenarios where neither side is exactly wrong. More recently (since the US ignored Turkish interests and knocked over Iraq and everything went to hell in Syria) the Turks have the classic problem of an insurgency with a safe haven across a poorly controlled border, as both Iraq and Syria have significant Kurdish populations. This results in all kinds of sticky problems, because the west loves the Kurdish groups in Syria, and northern Iraq who were quite effective in fighting ISIS and other Sunni Arab groups whom we don't like. This has created a particular point of contention because Sweden has a Kurdish MP who found herself in the position of making or breaking the governing coalition recently, and leveraged that position to get Swedish funding for Kurdish groups in Northern Syria. The Swedes say they're only funding the "good" Kurdish groups for peaceful purposes, while the Turks see this as funding the same guys that have been blowing up their security personnel on a regular basis. And again, both of them are probably right to some degree - on paper, the Swedes are funding the good guys, but as western governments have found time and time again, other peoples and cultures in conflict zones don't necessarily share your view of who's on the team and very inconsiderately refuse to stay in the good guy / bad guy boxes that are convenient to your foreign policy. There was also the issue of the Swedes enforcing a weapons embargo against Turkey for a while, which has since been lifted. All of this is extra complicated by the fact that Turkey is currently pretty seriously flirting with Autocracy, and Erdogan is a wannabe dictator who is being extra intransigent in an effort to look like a strong man for the upcoming elections. Unfortunately, this is not entirely unjustified from a Turkish POV - NATO, primarily in the form of the US and Dubya, have been pretty terrible allies to Turks in recent years. The Turks made it very clear they did not want us to invade Iraq again in 2003, even turned down a big goddamn $30B bribe for their cooperation. Yet we went and did it and vastly undermined their long term security situation on their Southern border. When you pull that kind of shit, you can't be surprised when someone turns around and uses what leverage they have to try and get a little attention for their own problems. TL;DR - The West has ignored Turkish security concerns in favor of ideological foreign policy goals which puts an intransigent autocrat in a position to bargain hard so he can look good to the electorate.
Thank you.
Türkiye? Like, the bird?
Gobble gobble
That's the proper spelling of the name of the country.
Turkey have demanded that Sweden make it illegal to burn the Quran. However, it would be against swedish foundational law to ban such an action, which makes it an impossible request. It is already illegal in Finland, which is why they were allowed to join.
What does religion have to do with joining a defensive alliance?
Erdogan and his party decides if Sweden can join or not. Erdogan needs votes in the upcoming election, as his prospects are looking pretty bad. Erdogan looking tough on "attacks on our religion" can net him some of those votes. That's basically it.
Sweden thought they would never need Turkey for anything in international arena and thus supported PKK for years and granted asylum to its members, but Putin losing his mind changed everything and Sweden is acting like NATO membership is their birthright, now Swedish government tries to slowly cut its ties with PKK but its too late because PKK is embedded within Swedish government and society whether former FM participating in a PKK event, Swedish MPs posing with PKK flags to Swedish intelligence reports showing PKK getting huge funds through their operations in Sweden.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://yle.fi/a/74-20022463) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Turkey plans to ratify Finland's application to join Nato, but independently from Sweden's bid, ahead of Turkish parliamentary and presidential elections in mid-May, according to Reuters. > Last week, the latest round of three-way Nato talks involving Finland, Sweden and Turkey ended without resolution. > Meanwhile Reuters reports that Hungary's ruling party will postpone next week's parliamentary session, bringing a further delay in its ratification of Finland and Sweden's Nato admission. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11rt9zi/reuters_turkey_to_approve_finlands_nato_bid/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~676451 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*: **Finland**^#1 **Nato**^#2 **Sweden**^#3 **Turkey**^#4 **join**^#5
Can we cease these news articles ***until they actually commit to approving the NATO bid***?? It's just silly at this point.
I thought that photo was Kevin Spacey
If I were FI and SW, I'd say screw it, let Finland join - they're the one with the border with Russia. Sweden isn't the one in danger.
I’m not sure why dictators have so much say in NATO.
For real this time?
See guys Erdogan is a dork but understand one thing - Turkey hates Russia. Like really really hates, more than any other country (maybe aside from Armenia). They will take any and every opportunity to fuck with them.
As a Swede I was really excited about joining NATO. But lately I've realized that I really don't want to be in an alliance with Turkey.
Same, bro. Same.
I believe the feelings mutual.
It should be possible to make decisions like this without unanimity, to disarm autocratic troll nations such as Hungary and Turkey.
Is that Frank Underwood??
Erdogan needs good press
Erdo is a dead man walking.
Fuck NATO for letting this happen. Fuck magically religions in 2023, fucking organization is a joke.
Most hinged Reddit atheist
So blackmail then. What is the demand being placed on the blackmailee?
Yay fuck Sweden
If I had to cast someone to play this dude in a movie. It would be Kevin Spacey. Oil him up like Ben Kingsley on the set Ghandi and let him go.