8 ms·

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: htt

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.
  - FunnyBadger 4y ago
    That's not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written. Maybe you should read it first.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written 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.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        It doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about and I have no idea what an "SS-4" is.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about Okay? > no idea what an "SS-4" is Sorry, pre coffee. S-400.
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        okay how would Turkey's s400 purchase be an article 8 violation?
        4y ago
- alkonaut 4y ago
  NATO has no provisions for evicting a member. It would need to form a separate alliance and all the others would join that one and leave NATO. And about the only reason that would conceivably ever happen is if a member grossly violated the values of all the others. Turkey despite being mostly non-democratic isn’t even close I’d imagine.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Formal eviction is not the only option to get rid of someone. The other member states might create circumstances (sanctions...) where Turkey would have to leave NATO "voluntarily". 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.
adolph 4y ago
Would you rather NATO drop Turkey, or Sweden drop the PKK? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-meet-turkey-criticises-swedish-finnish-support-pkk-2022-05-14/ 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.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  But Sweden and Finland are NOT "openly supporting" the PKK and YPG. Just copying the Erdogan propaganda is at best lazy. Nor is it correct to label these organizations as entirely "terrorist". The reality is a lot more complicated, but Erdogan would very much like you to simplify "organized Kurds = Terrorists"...
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Sweden most especially is not supporting the PKK. The PKK is even designated a terrorist organisation by the EU.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      To Turkey, there is no distinction between PKK & YPG, and Sweden is host to a number of YPG politicians.
  - adolph 4y ago
    If they aren't then what's the problem? 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/irish-troubles-american-money/593e3941-826e-4719-bc79-8eb528f8ac70/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/03/22/i...
m00dy 4y ago
I think NATO will be very important in this decade, so is Turkey.
newaccount2021 4y ago
nicce 4y ago
Strategic importance does not matter much if Finland does not allow the storage of nuclear weapons in their territory. Effective deterrence strategy would require that.
FunnyBadger 4y ago
Possibly but the fact that Turkey has been a NATO member since the 1960s pretty much makes that "wish" irrelevant or at least not ignorable. Seniority does count for something and ignoring it is great way of destroying a organization/treaty.
- atakurt 4y ago
  since 1952
whimsicalism 4y ago
NATO is not just about Russia. To me, suggesting that Sweden is somehow more strategically important than Turkey is foreign policy illiterate. 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).
- cm2187 4y ago
  They can also close the gates to the Mediterranean sea.
- giorgosts 4y ago
  They also occupy with 40000 soldiers one third of Cyprus, an EU country, thus essentially European territory.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    And Greece stations troops in Cyprus as well after illegally invading them.
    - giorgosts 4y ago
      Enough of the lying propaganda. North Cyprus is by the accession treaties EU territory that the Republic of Cyprus cannot effectively control due to the illegally occupying Turkish troops. Much like the Russian controlled parts of Ukraine. Numbers speak by themselves: 2000 troops in the South, 40000 troops in the occupied North.
  - mda 4y ago
    Well isn't this comment completely disingenuous and devoid of context..
rrrazdan 4y ago
Not at all. If Murmansk's importance causes Finland to be strategic then what about Crimea? Turkey blocks Russia's warm water sea access. Much more important for Turkey to be in NATO than Finland purely on the basis of geography.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  What is the point of having a NATO member who illogically rails against new members just because Russia tells them not to?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > What is the point of having a NATO member who illogically rails against new members just because Russia tells them not to? 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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
tablespoon 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 Turkey controls the Dardanelles Strait.
grapeskin 4y ago
Sweden has about zero chance of ever going against American/western Europe, short of having a puppet regime instated by Russia. 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.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
If NATO is to drop one of its loyal members over such simple request, what would be a reason for anyone to join that "alliance"? They could then as well drop a member that get attacked, instead of invoking Article 5 alliance case.

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.
- FunnyBadger 4y ago
  That's not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written. Maybe you should read it first.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written 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.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      It doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about and I have no idea what an "SS-4" is.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about Okay? > no idea what an "SS-4" is Sorry, pre coffee. S-400.
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        okay how would Turkey's s400 purchase be an article 8 violation?
        4y ago
alkonaut 4y ago
NATO has no provisions for evicting a member. It would need to form a separate alliance and all the others would join that one and leave NATO. And about the only reason that would conceivably ever happen is if a member grossly violated the values of all the others. Turkey despite being mostly non-democratic isn’t even close I’d imagine.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Formal eviction is not the only option to get rid of someone. The other member states might create circumstances (sanctions...) where Turkey would have to leave NATO "voluntarily". 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.

adolph 4y ago

Would you rather NATO drop Turkey, or Sweden drop the PKK? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-meet-turkey-criticises-swedish-finnish-support-pkk-2022-05-14/ 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.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
But Sweden and Finland are NOT "openly supporting" the PKK and YPG. Just copying the Erdogan propaganda is at best lazy. Nor is it correct to label these organizations as entirely "terrorist". The reality is a lot more complicated, but Erdogan would very much like you to simplify "organized Kurds = Terrorists"...
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Sweden most especially is not supporting the PKK. The PKK is even designated a terrorist organisation by the EU.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    To Turkey, there is no distinction between PKK & YPG, and Sweden is host to a number of YPG politicians.
- adolph 4y ago
  If they aren't then what's the problem? 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/irish-troubles-american-money/593e3941-826e-4719-bc79-8eb528f8ac70/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/03/22/i...

m00dy 4y ago

I think NATO will be very important in this decade, so is Turkey.

newaccount2021 4y ago

nicce 4y ago

Strategic importance does not matter much if Finland does not allow the storage of nuclear weapons in their territory. Effective deterrence strategy would require that.

FunnyBadger 4y ago

Possibly but the fact that Turkey has been a NATO member since the 1960s pretty much makes that "wish" irrelevant or at least not ignorable. Seniority does count for something and ignoring it is great way of destroying a organization/treaty.

atakurt 4y ago
since 1952

whimsicalism 4y ago

NATO is not just about Russia. To me, suggesting that Sweden is somehow more strategically important than Turkey is foreign policy illiterate. 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).

cm2187 4y ago
They can also close the gates to the Mediterranean sea.
giorgosts 4y ago
They also occupy with 40000 soldiers one third of Cyprus, an EU country, thus essentially European territory.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  And Greece stations troops in Cyprus as well after illegally invading them.
  - giorgosts 4y ago
    Enough of the lying propaganda. North Cyprus is by the accession treaties EU territory that the Republic of Cyprus cannot effectively control due to the illegally occupying Turkish troops. Much like the Russian controlled parts of Ukraine. Numbers speak by themselves: 2000 troops in the South, 40000 troops in the occupied North.
- mda 4y ago
  Well isn't this comment completely disingenuous and devoid of context..

rrrazdan 4y ago

Not at all. If Murmansk's importance causes Finland to be strategic then what about Crimea? Turkey blocks Russia's warm water sea access. Much more important for Turkey to be in NATO than Finland purely on the basis of geography.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
stjohnswarts 4y ago
What is the point of having a NATO member who illogically rails against new members just because Russia tells them not to?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > What is the point of having a NATO member who illogically rails against new members just because Russia tells them not to? 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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

tablespoon 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 Turkey controls the Dardanelles Strait.

grapeskin 4y ago

Sweden has about zero chance of ever going against American/western Europe, short of having a puppet regime instated by Russia. 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.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago

If NATO is to drop one of its loyal members over such simple request, what would be a reason for anyone to join that "alliance"? They could then as well drop a member that get attacked, instead of invoking Article 5 alliance case.