Finland and Sweden joining NATO?

[Falcrack]

While I could add this to the existing Russian Ukraine war thread, this would probably be considered a separate subject.

So Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to hand over 70 individuals in these countries that Turkey considers "terrorists". I think it is safe to say that if these individuals are sent, it amounts to either a death sentence, torture, or at least a very long prison term for these people. This however is a question for courts to answer, not politicians, and if they were to be handed over simply as a matter of politics and not based on the law, it would end up undermining the rule of law.

The question is, is NATO membership for Sweden and Finland worth bowing to these demands? If doing so requires that Finland and Sweden break their own laws and violate their own principles in order to gain NATO membership, essentially selling their souls, then my opinion is that it would not be worth it. I think it would be great for these nations to join NATO, but not if the price of joining is for them to do what they consider to be the wrong thing.

A better question is, should Turkey remain part of NATO? Erdogan seems far too cozy with Putin, and far too inclined towards authoritarianism, despotic rule, and limitations on individual rights. True, Turkey has a very large military, and a very strategic position, but I am not sure we can afford to maintain military alliances with nations which are not committed to the principles which we deeply believe in and hold dear, without endangering these principles in our own lands.

[notaterran]

It seems that Turkey's values are different than those of the West, so maybe it's better to simply give Finland and Sweden some kind of war guarantee independently of NATO.

[mr.WHO]

So Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to hand over 70 individuals in these countries that Turkey considers "terrorists". I think it is safe to say that if these individuals are sent, it amounts to either a death sentence, torture, or at least a very long prison term for these people. This however is a question for courts to answer, not politicians, and if they were to be handed over simply as a matter of politics and not based on the law, it would end up undermining the rule of law.

The question is, is NATO membership for Sweden and Finland worth bowing to these demands? If doing so requires that Finland and Sweden break their own laws and violate their own principles in order to gain NATO membership, essentially selling their souls, then my opinion is that it would not be worth it. I think it would be great for these nations to join NATO, but not if the price of joining is for them to do what they consider to be the wrong thing.

This might be very machiavellian, but in the end safety of the state 10 mil outweight safety of 70 individuals - unless they are like 70 Jesus x Einsten on the break to cure cancer and chew it with cold fusion.
If the state put it's mind to it, especially with thread of war is looming, good luck with things like courts, fair process and justice. They will materialise inside Turkey embassy faster than they can spell "call my lawyer".

If my name would be on this 70 list, I'd pack my bags right away and leave Finland/Sweden to other EU state - that would be probably the most sane and convinient outcome for all parties involved - with a lot of plausible deniability and no one getting killed.

Still if Turkey call them terrorist and politics is involved, I could see them being chased by Interpol. Possibly this could be blocked by other EU countries courts, that don't have to bow to Turkey.
Turkey could see this as not holding the deal and not ratify Finland/Sweden.


Alternatively, the most clean and sure solution, could be to forget about NATO mebership and go for bilateral mutual defense agreements.
Not long ago UK and Poland made such deal with Sweden and Finland, to secure their safety for the accession period.
If all NATO members, bar Turkey, sing such agreement, then it's basically works the same, screw Turkey and keep those 70 people alive and safe.

Maybe, instead of selling our souls, we just need to be more creative in finding the solutions?

A better question is, should Turkey remain part of NATO? Erdogan seems far too cozy with Putin, and far too inclined towards authoritarianism, despotic rule, and limitations on individual rights. True, Turkey has a very large military, and a very strategic position, but I am not sure we can afford to maintain military alliances with nations which are not committed to the principles which we deeply believe in and hold dear, without endangering these principles in our own lands.

Ideally, Turkey should be kicked out of NATO, but since some time (like Syrian war), it's no longer about NATO coherence, but more about asset denial.
Turkey kicked from NATO will immediately throw itself into Russia and China open arms, while tensions with Greece could actually spark a war that would drain NATO resources even further.

Turkey as it is, is least bad scenario, with a posibility of regime change in the future.
However, we need to keep in mind that regime change could still lead to above bad outcome, you never know, especially with like 70% inflation and no signs of getting better anytime soon.
I think whole Cold War had dozens such regime changes that turned from bad to worse - Turkey is definetly something that could turn even more ugly in near future.

[Warenwolf]

A better question is, should Turkey remain part of NATO? Erdogan seems far too cozy with Putin, and far too inclined towards authoritarianism, despotic rule, and limitations on individual rights. True, Turkey has a very large military, and a very strategic position, but I am not sure we can afford to maintain military alliances with nations which are not committed to the principles which we deeply believe in and hold dear, without endangering these principles in our own lands.

Coziness with Putin charge can be leveled against several european leaders and political parties (Orban, Le Pen, Merkel, Matteo Salvini, etc..etc..). Some of the mentioned people have also similar visions to those of Erdogan on how the government rule should be organized.
The list of those jumping in bed with Russian oligarchs is even longer - even after war in Ukraine started, Tories, ruling party in UK, was taking donations from Lubov Chernukhin.
France even supported (perhaps still do) same side as Russians did during Lybian civil war.
And just recently Biden did go to S. Arabia to chummy up with Mohammed bin Salman, de facto ruler of a country that makes Turkey look like shining beacon of modernity and freedom. I am not putting this in same category as examples above but merely to show what real politics look like.

I agree that Erdogan is dictator in all but name but let us be honest and admit that:

1) There is LOT of house cleaning to do inside what constitutes west. Which is not gonna be done because...reasons. And that is not caused by Erdogan and his ability to influence the west is very limited.

2) As you point out, Turkey is in strategic position, with an army which is actually semi-capable (more than can be said of majority of European toy armies). This is an army which actually shot down an Russian airplane infringing their airspace when push comes to shove (who except Poles would dare to do that in Europe?). It’s probably better to have Erdogan inside "the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in".

And if you want to kick Turkey out - what is your argument for keeping Orban's Hungary in?

PS: Forgot to say this - getting Finland and Sweden inside NATO is major geo-political victory for the NATO and loss to Putin.

[Falcrack]

If Finland and Sweden were to join a mini-NATO, such as a defensive alliance with just a few nations like the US, UK, and other willing participants in order to sidestep Turkey's objections, would that weaken NATO politically?

[Alan Phipps]

Possibly, because the NATO nations not in the mini-pact might have included the ones most on hand to quickly react and deter/contain/defeat any initial or reduced local aggression. Besides, what significant advantage is in it for the mini-pact nations that are currently already in NATO? Then there are the extra negotiations, different terms of support, summits, arguments about contributions, costs, etc, etc. A common bilateral agreement between individual nations, or a nation and a pact, are so much easier to negotiate, administer and be credible.

(Also Turkey might not like it and take it out on NATO anyway.)