14 ms·

But turks said no.

by m00dy 4y ago

But turks said no.

gerikson 4y ago
That's just a matter of haggling.
- vr46 4y ago
  Everything has a price
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    The problem may very well be that Putin has bought off or compromised Erdogan in some form. Then there is no price high enough.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      Realistically Erdogan doesn't have the power to stop this.
    - SkyMarshal 4y ago
      I doubt it, the Turks have been one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters, sending Bayraktar drones, closing their airspace to Russian flights, and closing the entrance to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean to Russian warships (all warships tbf). They’re no friend of Russia. This appears to just be about Sweden and Finland’s support for the Kurds, some of who are in Iraq and some in Turkey. Turkey doesn’t want them forming a new and potentially hostile nation on its border, and doesn’t want any support for that from within NATO. Unfortunately for the Kurds they’re probably about to get thrown under the bus, since Finland and Sweden are now more concerned about the much larger, aggressive, unstable, nuclear-armed rogue state on their own border.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        I think you are missing a lot of the military cooperation between Russia and Turkey. Turkey is buying weapons from Russia. Also, Erdogan stopped delivering the tank-busting missiles for the TB2 drone, which is a big deal. There really is no replacement. The Hellfire missile is too heavy and the Americans now have delivered unguided rockets retrofitted with a laser-seeking head but which can't bust tanks... So, Turkey and Russia might not exactly be friends. Erdogan and Putin is another topic. Also, be wary of what Erdogan and his people say. He's about as trustworthy as Putin, and when he calls those organizations "Terrorists" or that Sweden and Finland support them, then that's actually quite far from the truth and he wants something much less palatable.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      This is very likely. Erdogan really isn't much more than a thug, they always have a price, and often have dirty secrets they don't want laundered.
    - neoberg 4y ago
      Sweden is lucky that Erdogan is in power and he'll bend and do a 180 in a month max. If anyone else was in that position, this would never happen. This topic is probably the only thing that has this much mainstream support since Erdogan came to power.
martythemaniak 4y ago
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 https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525959053490458624
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  But NATO can't choose because getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance 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.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      If any member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same. This is extremely hard to avoid...
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same 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.
jeltz 4y ago
Sure, but the US will probably just throw them some bone and everything will be fine.
kome 4y ago
Turks are trying to establish some diplomatic bridge with Russia; that's very good. Russian aggression in Ukraine is terrible, but I feel the US are not trying to de-escalate anything. They are in full proxy-war mode. This can be very dangerous for Europe. France and Germany also would like to have more diplomacy, just like Turkey. Those countries have to live next to Russia - and maintaining a diplomatic relationship with Russia is vital. And this despite the fact that current Russian leadership is basically criminal. I don't think Sweden and Finland joining NATO is sending a good signal - or it's diplomatically wise. But let's see...
- macintux 4y ago
  The problem with de-escalation is this: what compromise is possible here? Ukraine should just give up its independence and land and ability to seek justice for the horrific war crimes? Russia has the power to de-escalate by withdrawing. Ukraine has the power to de-escalate by ceasing to exist.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Abide by Minsk II, officially cede crimea (according to gallup this is what 80-90% of crimeans want), disband azov and promise never to join NATO. Theres a perfectly clear deescalation path and has been since before the war started. This war was many things but inevitable was never one of them. Deescalation is the last thing NATO or the US wants though.
    - macintux 4y ago
      A lot of words to say “give up their independence”. And Putin says the Minsk agreements no longer exist. (Updated to fix autocorrect typo)
    - drakonka 4y ago
      And giving up their land and independence is the last thing Ukrainians want, so it sounds like Ukraine and NATO are on the same page in terms of not appeasing a senile tyrant invading a sovereign nation.
ericmay 4y ago
Nah, and also Turkey (similar to when people argued that Hungary or Croatia would object) would be kicked out of NATO before Sweden and Finland would be prevented from joining. "But how would they do that? There's no process.. etc." They can just take a vote and then that's that. Likely Turkey will get some appeasement concessions, but there's no serious risk here.
- arroz 4y ago
  Considering turkey controls the Black Sea, I doubt they would be kicked out At the same time, I don’t think they would say no anyway
  - ericmay 4y ago
    They'd definitely be kicked out at this point if push came to shove. No doubt about that. There's no value in a member who doesn't cooperate. Both Finland and Sweden are very much aligned with the rest of NATO and if member states object to them joining you basically set the precedent that one member state (that's not the US/UK) can hold the group hostage. There's no way that would be tolerated, regardless of the strategic importance of Turkey. To your point, they won't say no anyway. All the speculation is, I think, just circus.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mcv 4y ago
      I really don't think so. Turkey is in a very strategic location. Turkey has leverage and a very good chance of getting the concessions they want. Which is sad, because I care about the Kurds, and they seemed to be one of the few good, humane groups in Syria.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Yea I mean you’re free to disagree or course and we won’t really know for sure until something like this gets tested, but I’ve stated my opinion on the matter and don’t have much else to add.
tablespoon 4y ago
> But turks said no. No. If the Turks actually said "no," they wouldn't be making demands: https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finland-and-sweden-membership/a-61806003 https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finlan...: > Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Sunday outlined demands for Finland and Sweden which seek membership in NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. > Speaking with Turkish reporters after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, he said that Sweden and Finland must stop supporting terrorists in their countries, provide clear security guarantees and lift export bans on Turkey.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    > From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? ...because neither country is supporting Erdoğan's enemies? The dictator is just posturing for his own people, he'll never actually dare to vote against every other country in NATO.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mabbo 4y ago
    > why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? Because Russia is still the scarier enemy. If the rest of NATO approves, what is Turkey going to do? Leave NATO and accept eventual invasion?
    - srhngpr 4y ago
      If I recall correctly, it requires unanimous vote of approval.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> But turks said I very much doubt that these announcements are the _start_ of negotiations. More likely, the public phase makes the beginning of the end of negotiations for Sweden (and Finland) to join NATO. It would be a co-ordinated, done deal or close to it, before they break cover and announce it to the world, and to Russia specifically.

But turks said no.

by m00dy 4y ago

But turks said no.

gerikson 4y ago

That's just a matter of haggling.

vr46 4y ago
Everything has a price
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  The problem may very well be that Putin has bought off or compromised Erdogan in some form. Then there is no price high enough.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Realistically Erdogan doesn't have the power to stop this.
  - SkyMarshal 4y ago
    I doubt it, the Turks have been one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters, sending Bayraktar drones, closing their airspace to Russian flights, and closing the entrance to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean to Russian warships (all warships tbf). They’re no friend of Russia. This appears to just be about Sweden and Finland’s support for the Kurds, some of who are in Iraq and some in Turkey. Turkey doesn’t want them forming a new and potentially hostile nation on its border, and doesn’t want any support for that from within NATO. Unfortunately for the Kurds they’re probably about to get thrown under the bus, since Finland and Sweden are now more concerned about the much larger, aggressive, unstable, nuclear-armed rogue state on their own border.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      I think you are missing a lot of the military cooperation between Russia and Turkey. Turkey is buying weapons from Russia. Also, Erdogan stopped delivering the tank-busting missiles for the TB2 drone, which is a big deal. There really is no replacement. The Hellfire missile is too heavy and the Americans now have delivered unguided rockets retrofitted with a laser-seeking head but which can't bust tanks... So, Turkey and Russia might not exactly be friends. Erdogan and Putin is another topic. Also, be wary of what Erdogan and his people say. He's about as trustworthy as Putin, and when he calls those organizations "Terrorists" or that Sweden and Finland support them, then that's actually quite far from the truth and he wants something much less palatable.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    This is very likely. Erdogan really isn't much more than a thug, they always have a price, and often have dirty secrets they don't want laundered.
  - neoberg 4y ago
    Sweden is lucky that Erdogan is in power and he'll bend and do a 180 in a month max. If anyone else was in that position, this would never happen. This topic is probably the only thing that has this much mainstream support since Erdogan came to power.

martythemaniak 4y ago

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 https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525959053490458624

bayesian_horse 4y ago
But NATO can't choose because getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance 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.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    If any member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same. This is extremely hard to avoid...
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same 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.

jeltz 4y ago

Sure, but the US will probably just throw them some bone and everything will be fine.

kome 4y ago

Turks are trying to establish some diplomatic bridge with Russia; that's very good. Russian aggression in Ukraine is terrible, but I feel the US are not trying to de-escalate anything. They are in full proxy-war mode. This can be very dangerous for Europe. France and Germany also would like to have more diplomacy, just like Turkey. Those countries have to live next to Russia - and maintaining a diplomatic relationship with Russia is vital. And this despite the fact that current Russian leadership is basically criminal. I don't think Sweden and Finland joining NATO is sending a good signal - or it's diplomatically wise. But let's see...

macintux 4y ago
The problem with de-escalation is this: what compromise is possible here? Ukraine should just give up its independence and land and ability to seek justice for the horrific war crimes? Russia has the power to de-escalate by withdrawing. Ukraine has the power to de-escalate by ceasing to exist.
- pydry 4y ago
  Abide by Minsk II, officially cede crimea (according to gallup this is what 80-90% of crimeans want), disband azov and promise never to join NATO. Theres a perfectly clear deescalation path and has been since before the war started. This war was many things but inevitable was never one of them. Deescalation is the last thing NATO or the US wants though.
  - macintux 4y ago
    A lot of words to say “give up their independence”. And Putin says the Minsk agreements no longer exist. (Updated to fix autocorrect typo)
  - drakonka 4y ago
    And giving up their land and independence is the last thing Ukrainians want, so it sounds like Ukraine and NATO are on the same page in terms of not appeasing a senile tyrant invading a sovereign nation.

ericmay 4y ago

Nah, and also Turkey (similar to when people argued that Hungary or Croatia would object) would be kicked out of NATO before Sweden and Finland would be prevented from joining. "But how would they do that? There's no process.. etc." They can just take a vote and then that's that. Likely Turkey will get some appeasement concessions, but there's no serious risk here.

arroz 4y ago
Considering turkey controls the Black Sea, I doubt they would be kicked out At the same time, I don’t think they would say no anyway
- ericmay 4y ago
  They'd definitely be kicked out at this point if push came to shove. No doubt about that. There's no value in a member who doesn't cooperate. Both Finland and Sweden are very much aligned with the rest of NATO and if member states object to them joining you basically set the precedent that one member state (that's not the US/UK) can hold the group hostage. There's no way that would be tolerated, regardless of the strategic importance of Turkey. To your point, they won't say no anyway. All the speculation is, I think, just circus.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcv 4y ago
    I really don't think so. Turkey is in a very strategic location. Turkey has leverage and a very good chance of getting the concessions they want. Which is sad, because I care about the Kurds, and they seemed to be one of the few good, humane groups in Syria.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Yea I mean you’re free to disagree or course and we won’t really know for sure until something like this gets tested, but I’ve stated my opinion on the matter and don’t have much else to add.

tablespoon 4y ago

> But turks said no. No. If the Turks actually said "no," they wouldn't be making demands: https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finland-and-sweden-membership/a-61806003 https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finlan...: > Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Sunday outlined demands for Finland and Sweden which seek membership in NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. > Speaking with Turkish reporters after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, he said that Sweden and Finland must stop supporting terrorists in their countries, provide clear security guarantees and lift export bans on Turkey.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  > From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? ...because neither country is supporting Erdoğan's enemies? The dictator is just posturing for his own people, he'll never actually dare to vote against every other country in NATO.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mabbo 4y ago
  > why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? Because Russia is still the scarier enemy. If the rest of NATO approves, what is Turkey going to do? Leave NATO and accept eventual invasion?
  - srhngpr 4y ago
    If I recall correctly, it requires unanimous vote of approval.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> But turks said I very much doubt that these announcements are the _start_ of negotiations. More likely, the public phase makes the beginning of the end of negotiations for Sweden (and Finland) to join NATO. It would be a co-ordinated, done deal or close to it, before they break cover and announce it to the world, and to Russia specifically.