If they had to choose, NATO would probably rather have Sweden and Finland in and Turkey out. Here's an interesting thread on Finland's strategic importance: https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525959053490458624
Turkey brings a military ~30x the size of Sweden, they are actively involved in being a buffer for conflicts in the Middle East, and they have an advanced military manufacturing capability that they have used to supply Ukraine and others with military drones.
They also have substantial more recent conflict experience and partnerships with affiliates throughout MENA.
Even if NATO was about Russia, Turkey is a much more important buffer to Russian ambitions than Sweden is.
I'm not a particular fan of Turkey, but the only reason we would rather have Sweden over Turkey is due to "soft" cultural, christian, western centrism (calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain).
Numbers speak by themselves: 2000 troops in the South, 40000 troops in the occupied North.
Another point of context to you: Russia's narrative for the invasion of Ukraine is copied word by word from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.
Super disingenuous considering that Greece was the initial country to invade and that multiple UN-brokered solutions to the problem have been supported by the Turkish side only to have been voted down by Greek cypriots. [0]
Apparently, the Turks included the recognition of the occupied (by them) North Cyprus as one of the terms for agreeing to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
> calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain
In this case it's because it's just wrong. Sweden is by and large a peaceful, democratic, liberal democracy that has free markets and cooperates with NATO member states on a variety of areas. In other words, the interests and values are very closely aligned. The reason we would have Turkey "out" here is because of a misalignment of values - i.e. Turkey is (or would in this case) diverge from the shared interests of the majority of NATO members. I mean, to point this out from the start there's absolutely no reason for Turkey to object over Sweden joining NATO in the first place. The very act of that objection is a divergence from the rest of the group's shared values.
But this is also mostly a nothing-burger because Turkey's public messaging is different from its private messaging. Erdogan will get an internationally inconsequential bone for domestic audiences and will happily vote Sweden (and Finland) in to NATO.
NATO wouldn't do this without having all the members already in agreement with expansion. That's how things work at this level.
This is disingenuous. The YPG question is not "no reason" for Turkey. (I disagree about the reason, but it is still an actual concern for the Turkish government).
> if they don't really cooperate with you.
Turkey absolutely cooperated extensively with the US & NATO. Militarily, much more so than Sweden does.
I don't view that as a valid reason to object to Sweden joining NATO. Maybe Turkey does, and maybe they won't be in NATO over it by the end of the year? There's 0 chance that Sweden and Finland don't join NATO, regardless of what Turkey publically claims.
> Turkey absolutely cooperated extensively with the US & NATO. Militarily, much more so than Sweden does.
Sure, and that cooperation is expected to continue. Ongoing partnerships have to like, keep going on right? Voting "no" to block Sweden and/or Finland from joining NATO would stop the ongoing partnership and end many elements of cooperation. Frankly, while Turkey is helpful militarily and strategically, the US can do anything in the world it needs to do with or without Turkey. But the one thing the US (and NATO) can't afford is serious dissension in the ranks, and that won't be tolerated regardless of the cost.
It's similar to me with the Taiwan thing. For some crazy reason people think that the US wouldn't go to war with China to defend Taiwan. For a while, people such as myself even were concerned about the Baltic states - then the US and UK moved thousands of troops there. These alliances and commitments are a big deal, especially when genuine strategic interests are at stake amongst nation states.
Well if it prevents them from cooperating with someone else it might still be worth it.
Not only, but for the most part....It's about Russia.
> Turkey brings a military ~30x the size of Sweden
On the other hand Sweden and Finland at 2% GDP has a similar defense budget to Turkey. Money does not a military make, but "30x the size" is only counting manpower and not much else. Modern fighter aircraft is around a factor 2x rather than 30x, for example.
> a buffer for conflicts in the Middle East > advanced military manufacturing capability > partnerships with affiliates throughout MENA
These are all very important.
> "soft" cultural, christian, western centrism (calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain).
It's perhaps easier to look at democracy and press-freedom indices then, to see why Turkey isn't like the others. Perhaps that's what you meant? The problem is that undemocratic/authoritarian states tend to be stable, until they suddenly aren't. NATO is supposed to be a partnership of democracies (It's a prerequisite for applying!) so it's safe to say that being not-a-democracy isn't popular once in the alliance either.
So sure, NATO is a defense mechanism for what some would call western (that is: secular, liberal, ...) democracy. That indeed does touch on culture and religion, but only superficially. Turkey has long been the champion of secularism in the area, and obviosuly everyone in NATO (and elsewhere) hopes that will remain the case, hence one is reluctant to push Turkey away too.
Exactly. With all the faults of current Turkish government, they are a mile ahead of everyone else in Middle East. The problem is the comparison: they were going forward with EU membership - their government just was way more sane in the past... And there's decent chance that Erdogan will be voted out in 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_T...
This isn’t irrelevant to what we are seeing now. He needs some good news/external foes/strongman aura these days.
Turkey is the 2nd most powerful military in NATO after USA. It has access to all modern weapons, manufacturing abilities and above all, centuries of experience in fighting, winning and losing WARS.
Turkey's location is very very important for all kind of military operations and trade via Black Sea.
Turkey would have zero reason to be pro-west in any way without NATO. They've basically been the one fairly stable Muslim-majority, non-oil dictatorship in the Middle East for decades now and it's much better to keep them as a lukewarm ally than have them be an outright enemy.
Vietnam is in a similar position. They're not exactly friends with the US, but the fact they have more motivation to be anti-China than anti-US is a good reason to not antagonize them. They're a strong antagonist against the US's enemies more than they are a full-on ally of the US, and that's a perfectly fine partnership to have.
You, I think, know very little about Turkey's politics to make a claim like that.
PKK & YPG has long been a perceived thorn in Turkey's side and they have largely felt like the rest of NATO has ignored this problem if not actively antagonized them on it.
To them, it's akin to as if the rest of NATO was funding cartels in Mexico.
Not really. It does if one does this after they’re invaded, to evade mutual defence commitments. But acknowledging that there are no longer shared values and providing an off ramp is perfectly fine. Strengthening, even, as it shows heightened resolve to take the commitment seriously.
Most treaties have termination clauses. The North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 13 provides for voluntary exit [1]. (One could argue Ankara’s SS-4 purchase constitutes an Article 8 violation, though this would be petry.)
Treaties are about mutual understanding. If Americans and Czechs would find it unseemly to fight for Turkey’s defence in case of invasion, it does more harm to pretend they’re under collective defence than to amend the treaty to make it extremely clear whom one can invade without getting nuked and whom one cannot.
All this said, I think Turkey should remain a NATO member. They have shown themselves by arming Ukraine and denouncing Putin. They are a founding member. And their position remains strategically critical.
[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
Okay?
> no idea what an "SS-4" is
Sorry, pre coffee. S-400.
This has been covered in the American refusal to sell Ankara F-35s and ensuing sanctioning of it under CAATSA [1].
In short, no detection system is perfect. And no modern military system is sold without servicing. Letting Russia service an air defence system with the privilege of painting NATO jets, arms and missile defences is a breach of trust. It could be considered, again, pettily, though good luck to those who claims the law is often anything but, “an international engagement in conflict with” Turkey’s NATO obligations.
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12628
Ejection is a serious thing. Even its deliberation will have the effect you describe.
But anyone pretending NATO is immortal or immutable or above political alignment is naïve. If a member behaves radically differently from the others, will it be politically feasible to send one’s soldiers to their aid in a time of need? If the answer to that question isn’t predictably an unambiguous yes, the treaty should be modified. Leaving Russia to guess whether Estonia is a Britain member or a Hungary member undermines the alliance's deterrence.
These treaties were forged by our parents and grandparents. They’re stronger as living documents than relics.
Another option is if a member state were to commit genocide. In that case the alliance might dissolve and the other members might instead band together and attack that member. Hypothetically speaking.
Turkey controls the Dardanelles Strait.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-meet-turkey-critic...
"The problem is that these two countries are openly supporting and engaging with PKK and YPG. These are terrorist organisations that have been attacking our troops every day," Mevlut Cavusoglu said as he arrived in Berlin for a meeting with his NATO counterparts.
"Therefore it is unacceptable and outrageous that our friends and allies are supporting this terrorist organisation," he said. "These are the issues that we need to talk about with our NATO allies as well as these countries" Sweden and Finland, he added.
The reality is a lot more complicated, but Erdogan would very much like you to simplify "organized Kurds = Terrorists"...
On the other hand, if the PKK is able to fundraise in Sweden and Finland like the IRA used to be able to in the US, then it seems logical for Turkey to use whatever leverage they have to decrease that activity, similar to GB.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/03/22/i...
As a total outsider I see the situation as somewhat related to the Palestinian struggle: The more you are struggling for basic survival in the face of aggression, oppression and poverty, the less energy and motivation there is to curb the excesses of extremists in the own ranks.
You probably it is not the same, but for many, many people it is.
Also, your example missed the point where the Good friday agreement was drafted with US backing and help. This actually did more for the peace than decreasing fundraisers. Maybe Turkey should learn from this example?
I’m ask out of moderate ignorance in that I read the claims of Turkey and that of Sweden and Finland without a mechanism for deducing truth beyond various actors’ assertions.
While it would be optimal if Turkey did wage “Good Friday” peace to the extent that it is possible, it doesn’t seem likely since their position in the triad is that of GB, not the US. The non-NATO Nordics are more similar to the role of the US.
I don't have a solution either. I'll let professional negotiators find one :)
Also the Kurds are forming a state in parts of Syria and Iraq, where the "original" state is not able to restore order, especially against islamic militants. On top of that, the Turkish security forces have a long history of prosecuting Kurdish civilians. This makes the whole label of "terrorism" extremely murky and what Erdogan wants of NATO is much less nice than support against terrorists: He wants support and acquiescence in his war against Kurdish forces, including outside Turkey.