Posted on 06/28/2022 10:20:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has removed his objections to the applications for NATO membership submitted by Sweden and Finland, guaranteeing those two previously unaligned nations will join the West’s bulwark alliance against Russian aggression.
In May, Sweden and Finland announced they would ask to become members of the NATO military alliance. This was an unprecedented step that even the threat of the USSR had not been able to accomplish (Finland Announces It Will Join NATO, Sweden to Follow, While Moscow Makes Its Usual Threats). Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine did accomplish what Joe Stalin couldn’t in no small part because Putin began making noises about reestablishing the boundaries of the Romanov’s Imperial Russia (Did a Quickly Deleted Essay in Russian Media Explain What Vladimir Putin Wants Russia to Gain From the Ukraine Invasion? and Putin’s Threats to Sweden and Finland Are Much More Real Than They Are Being Given Credit For).
Just as things seemed settled–even Putin’s closest friend in NATO, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, approved of the new members (Hungary’s Viktor Orban Clears the Way for Finland to Join NATO in a Matter of Months)–Erdogan threw in a stink bomb.
Erdogan has voiced opposition to Finland and Sweden joining NATO in the past week, saying their support for the Kurds raises questions about adding the two countries as NATO members. A senior Turkish official told Bloomberg Friday that Turkey wants Finland and Sweden to take a clear stance against Kurdish militants fighting in southeast Turkey, and that Turkey will hold negotiations over their membership. Erdogan’s spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin clarified Saturday that Turkey isn’t attempting to block Finland and Sweden’s bids entirely, but wants to ensure that the national security of all NATO members is taken into consideration.
As talks developed, it became apparent that Erdogan wanted three things. First, he wanted an arms embargo Sweden and Finland had imposed on Turkey over its ongoing war with various Kurdish groups lifted. He wanted Sweden to cut all ties with the Kurdish PKK faction. Finally, he wanted Sweden and Finland to extradite Kurdish militants as well as members of the Gülen Movement, whom Erdogan blames for a 2016 coup attempt.
Turkey is a member of NATO for precisely one reason: it controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles. During the Cold War, that key piece of geography bottled up the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and secured the Eastern Mediterranean. It is an economic basket case with no cultural, linguistic, political, or religious points of commonality to the West. Since the demise of the USSR, Turkey’s actions could frequently be mistaken for those of a Russian ally in the correct lighting. It cooperated with the Russians in the war in Syria. Its military links to Russia became so troubling that it was booted from the lucrative F-35 grift. Turkey has nearly gone to war with Greece several times over Cyprus and Greece’s exclusive economic zone n the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. In my personal opinion, Turkey’s possession of “The Straits” is less important than its political instability and inability to cooperate with NATO on major issues. Were it up to me; I’d give them their severance papers and let them deal with Iran as best they can.
The day before the NATO Summit in Madrid, Turkey said it was fine with Sweden and Finland joining the club.
“As NATO allies, Finland and Sweden commit to fully support Turkey against threats to its national security,” NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, providing some details of the agreement. “This includes further amending their domestic legislation, cracking down on P.K.K. activities and entering into an agreement with Turkey on extradition,” he added, referring to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party which seeks an independent Kurdish state on territory partly within Turkey’s borders.
Mr. Erdogan had been blocking the Nordic countries’ NATO bids amid concerns over Sweden’s longtime support for the P.K.K. which has attacked nonmilitary targets and killed civilians in Turkey, is outlawed in that country and is designated by both the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization.
But the memorandum does not specify the extradition of any of the 45 people or so Mr. Erdogan wanted sent to Turkey to face trial on terrorism charges. Sweden has already passed tougher legislation against terrorism that goes into effect July 1.
This move creates a permanent change in European security arrangements. Sweden and Finland bring two highly regarded and well-equipped armies into NATO. Moreover, both nations are on track to reach the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defense by 2023, something most NATO nations fail to do.
Turkey’s acquiescence to a move that definitely hurts Putin’s expansion goals in the Arctic and goes a long way toward making Russia’s Northern and Baltic Fleets impotent and confined to port in case of a crisis with NATO. It means that Erdogan has decided that, for the time being, it is to Turkey’s advantage to cast his lot with NATO and not with his former BFF Vladimir Putin.
Yay! WWIII is on its way.
Realpolitik in action. In order for Erdogan to pursue his goals and hold off the Kurds, he has to be stay in power. Finland and Sweden do not want to be under Russian domination. A stronger NATO servers all their goals. The Kurds get the short shrift again.
Sweden does not share common border with Russia.
But Finland does. Get ready for war in Finland.
The Finns are not to be trifled with.
Huh?!
Geography, much?
Sweden and Finland do not adjoin any arctic waters. They could easily bottle up the Baltic, of course, and - by extension - prevent the Russian Navy from accessing the North Atlantic, but what the author is claiming here is a stretch.
Not entirely wrong, mind you - just a little confusing.
Regards,
Sweden and Finland joining NATO will strengthen our alliance.
Are you against that? Why?
Because it might hurt Lil' Putin's feeweeings?
Regards,
With what? Belarus sure the hell is not going to get involved. Without a war conscript call up, Russia doesn’t have the manpower or equipment to fight a 2 front war, especially with NATO. Russias status is not the same as when it had the manpower of the then Warsaw Pact countries. These countries are now NATO members!
Putins goal of keeping Sweden and Finland out of NATO has failed. His war in. Ukraine is stalled. Russia has defaulted on debt interest payments, first time in over 100 years, and outside of oil production, his economy is in a shambles. Sanctions are preventing producing modern tanks and aircraft. He know he’s heading into the biggest guerrilla war since Afghanistan and is on the Ukraine border.
China is his only ally in close proximity and they are licking their chops to get the oil for feee by annexing eastern provinces of Russia. Time is not on Russias side.
But I have since become more educated (jaded?) and am more of a realist. If America was still the Arsenal of a Democracy founded upon Judeo-Christian principles then I might still support a unipolar world with an ever increasing NATO and other alliances. However, we have become the Arsenal of Perversity and organizations like the WHO, WTO, IMF, UN, EU, and the various G's seem bent on cajoling, shaming, taxing and legislating all countries into being allies of perversion.
I am now more open to a multipolar world with all of its drawbacks, rather than the current train wreck in progress. Do I want China to absorb Taiwan? No. But I don't want Taiwan to be gobbled up by globohomo either. T-Pop anyone?
The experts I agree with don't believe that a neutralized Ukraine will inevitably embolden Russia to fully reconstitute the Soviet Union. On the other hand, limiting Russia's sphere of influence to just Russia itself could lead to horrifying consequences for everyone on Earth.
I don’t think this is any big deal, the NATO snowflakes will never go against Pootie. They are hitting three clicks from Polands boarder and NATO does thing.
Finland is way smaller population and also in size.
Just watch, when Ukraine surrenders Donbas & Odessa to Russia, Finland will be next.
Russia can easily hire mercenaries from India who has the 2nd biggest military soldiers in the world ( after China) and needs money to pay Russia for the energy raw products. India has excess oil refining capacity and can use the Russian oil. Petrol is the most fungible export product in the world.
Russia has patience and inno hurry. Russian mentality is not same as American mentality where only thing which counts is bottom line next quarter. Never forget Russia has more oil, coal, gas, gold, iron, timber etc than other country in the world. Siberia is huge and largely unexploited.
NATO has been very stingy in contributing to military spending. Europe is shrewd. Why spend money on military when the dumass Americans will spend it for them with borrowed money. Russia has more nukes than France + UK combined by a factor of 10. Europe is densely populated, Russia has 12 time zones. Who suffers more in a nuclear canflict?
Thank you for your measured response! You have given me a little (I think: honest) insight into the mindset of those FReepers who side with Russia in this conflict. I think that you are wrong, but at least as you have formulated it, it is not irrational.
In your last paragraph, however, you employ the Equivocation Fallacy or an appalling euphemism when you characterize Russia's invasion of, devastation of, and land-grab in Ukraine as mere "neutralization." In fact, Russia's actions constitute a grave violation of International Law, a breech of Comity among Nations, and an insult to human decency.
Further, in that last sentence, your are again guilty of equivocation ("not allowing Russia to invade and lay waste to an innocent victim unpunished" = "limiting Russia's 'sphere of influence'"). And you essentially state that we must give Russia anything it wants - basic decency, morals, post-war European peace order, and inviolability of international borders be damned - because Putin might otherwise launch a nuclear war.
If that is truly your position, then you might as well give Putin whatever he wants in the future. Because if you kowtow to him now, on the issue of Ukraine, you can be sure that he will not long be satisfied with just that victory, and having learned how efficacious threatening with nukes is, he will certainly make use it again and again.
I find your position both morally repugnant as well as totally unrealistic in practice.
Regards,
Your Russian accent is really showing there, Comrade! Better inform your Shift Manager there at the bot farm that you need to be relieved!
Regards,
Regards,
Russia was very patient in issuing only warnings for decades.
We have no more respect for Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia as we were behind the color revolution that put the current despot in power in Ukraine.
If we had given Russia what they wanted after German reunification then all they would have asked for is a friendly president. This is no more than what the US demanded of South American countries via the Monroe Doctrine.
My beliefs are not based on a fear of nuclear holocaust. To my mind that would be a far less tragic ending than a world run by the likes of Soros and Schwab.
If I believed that nations were actually sovereign and there were such things as working democracies then I might share your naive beliefs and rally around the blue and yellow flag, unlike the millions of Ukrainians who footed it to the West before the war even started in order to make a living in countries that were less openly oligarchic than Ukraine.
My accent is a mix of Indian and American. I got no dog in this fight.
Funny thing is when I visit India, my relatives tell me I speak with a funny accent. When I am in USA, people ask me where is that accent from? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.