Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Yeah there's no world where NATO ejects Turkey lol. Much more important strategically to keep it in there than to allow in Sweden or Finland. Probably NATO members will have to cave to every single Turkish demand if they want to allow either country in.

They didn’t reiterate this particular demand last night, but at least one on their list of conditions is probably unthinkable for the USA - they want unconditional export licenses for every weapon they could buy or have bought from there.

I don’t think any other country has had that kind of deal in modern times. Even America’s own arms trade has conditions for export.

The lack of Turkish clarity/fluidity of the demands suggest they will get some, but not all, of what they want to extort - but if they have to be given all of what they want to avoid a veto, then NATO will suffer a veto.

[Lord Halifax]

Yeah there's no world where NATO ejects Turkey lol. Much more important strategically to keep it in there than to allow in Sweden or Finland. Probably NATO members will have to cave to every single Turkish demand if they want to allow either country in.

Depends how much you care about the Middle East (and the US probably should care a lot less about that region). The Baltic Sea is after all more important than the Black Sea, and the Arctic is getting more important all the time. Finland is right next to both Russia's second most important metro area and the main base of its Northern Fleet (which includes two-thirds of the Russian navy's nuclear-powered ships) near Murmansk.

Long term the US will have to choose between being allied with the EU countries and Turkey, and the former are much more important.

[Agonized-Statism]

Yeah there's no world where NATO ejects Turkey lol. Much more important strategically to keep it in there than to allow in Sweden or Finland. Probably NATO members will have to cave to every single Turkish demand if they want to allow either country in.

True. The US even refused to alienate Turkey over the invasion of Cyprus. A veto could tip the scale on the worsening deterioration of relations between Turkey and the rest of NATO, though, and Turkey could just end up going its own way. Something has to give eventually, and the US is looking toward China anyway.

[Frodo]

Senate on track to approve NATO bids of Finland and Sweden
Most Republicans are enthusiastically backing the countries' bids as a way to push back against Russian aggression.

[jaichind]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Why do you assume this didn't happen? The Turkish concerns with Finland and Sweden were pretty low-key before their application, and their concerns with the US hadn't previously led them to pull this kind of stunt.

The most likely scenario, IMO, is that Erdogan opportunistically raised surprise objections at this moment precisely because it is easier for Turkey to get its pound of flesh this way.

[jaichind]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Why do you assume this didn't happen? The Turkish concerns with Finland and Sweden were pretty low-key before their application, and their concerns with the US hadn't previously led them to pull this kind of stunt.

The most likely scenario, IMO, is that Erdogan opportunistically raised surprise objections at this moment precisely because it is easier for Turkey to get its pound of flesh this way.

Right now even the Turkish domestic opposition is backing Erdogan's position.  If Erdogan did privately agree with Finland and Sweden joining NATO then I would now expect the USA to leak these details to the opposition to hit back at Erdogan.  The fact they did not tell me they most likely did not even bother trying to get Turkey to privately agree.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Why do you assume this didn't happen? The Turkish concerns with Finland and Sweden were pretty low-key before their application, and their concerns with the US hadn't previously led them to pull this kind of stunt.

The most likely scenario, IMO, is that Erdogan opportunistically raised surprise objections at this moment precisely because it is easier for Turkey to get its pound of flesh this way.

Right now even the Turkish domestic opposition is backing Erdogan's position.  If Erdogan did privately agree with Finland and Sweden joining NATO then I would now expect the USA to leak these details to the opposition to hit back at Erdogan.  The fact they did not tell me they most likely did not even bother trying to get Turkey to privately agree.

You could be right, but it might not be wise to publicly hit back at Erdogan when they are trying to get him to change his mind - seemingly amicably.

[jaichind]

Another thought.  This entire affair with Turkey shows it might not be wise for NATO to bring Sweden and especially Finland into the alliance.  Just like Turkey is able to vote actions using its leverage of being in NATO, if and when Sweden and Finland join NATO they will also be given such powers and leverage as well.  This is especially true for Finland which will be at the frontline of any conflict with Russia.  This means that a Finland in NATO will veto actions that might provoke Russia over things Finland does not seem critical to Finland's national interests.  A larger NATO does not necessarily mean a stronger NATO is you are increasing the diversity of interests within the alliance.  This is one of many examples to show that diversity is not a strength.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Another thought.  This entire affair with Turkey shows it might not be wise for NATO to bring Sweden and especially Finland into the alliance.  Just like Turkey is able to vote actions using its leverage of being in NATO, if and when Sweden and Finland join NATO they will also be given such powers and leverage as well.  This is especially true for Finland which will be at the frontline of any conflict with Russia.  This means that a Finland in NATO will veto actions that might provoke Russia over things Finland does not seem critical to Finland's national interests.  A larger NATO does not necessarily mean a stronger NATO is you are increasing the diversity of interests within the alliance.  This is one of many examples to show that diversity is not a strength.

The Baltics also share a border with Russia and it has traditionally had greater designs on them than Finland or Sweden (or Norway). As with all organisations which sometimes require unanimous votes, expansion brings risks of more frequent vetos, but I’d argue they are low in these cases and outweighed by the benefits of a more secure peace in Europe. There aren’t that many scenarios where a veto would be used by Finland or Sweden but not one of the other four NATO members bordering Russia.

[Torie]

If Turkey is not bluffing, the voting rules need to be changed. It is just not a viable system. In reality, any NATO country who does not want to come to the aid of another member, will not.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If Turkey is not bluffing, the voting rules need to be changed. It is just not a viable system. In reality, any NATO country who does not want to come to the aid of another member, will not.

If unanimous consent is removed, what you allege to be reality will become closer to the international perception. At the moment, the "democratic" nature of the organisation means it has more credibility, and that a member state failing to uphold its commitments loses more credibility.

Maybe the trade-off is worth it, but the removal of the requirement of unity is a significant trade-off. It is also something a number of member states would shut down, because several of them want to have the option of keeping certain applicants out of NATO.* Even if they were somehow persuaded not to veto such a change, NATO would then be more likely to end up with an increasing number members which were not interested in each other's mutual defence.

*For instance: Cyprus would be vetoed by Turkey; North Cyprus (if recognised) would be vetoed by Greece; Kosovo (if recognised) and Bosnia might be vetoed by one of the Balkan members. The NATO and EU memberships of multiple ex-Warsaw Pact states would have become stumbling blocks if Russia had made more serious attempts to get into either organisation.

[Torie]

If Turkey is not bluffing, the voting rules need to be changed. It is just not a viable system. In reality, any NATO country who does not want to come to the aid of another member, will not.

If unanimous consent is removed, what you allege to be reality will become closer to the international perception. At the moment, the "democratic" nature of the organisation means it has more credibility, and that a member state failing to uphold its commitments loses more credibility.

Maybe the trade-off is worth it, but the removal of the requirement of unity is a significant trade-off. It is also something a number of member states would shut down, because several of them want to have the option of keeping certain applicants out of NATO.* Even if they were somehow persuaded not to veto such a change, NATO would then be more likely to end up with an increasing number members which were not interested in each other's mutual defence.

*For instance: Kosovo would be vetoed by states that do not recognise it, Cyprus would be vetoed by Turkey, North Cyprus would be vetoed by Greece and Bosnia might be vetoed by one of the Balkan members.

I am not sure a NATO member who is not interested in defending another member will commit much to their defense in any event. It is more about that the mutual defense part allows nations that do wish to come to the defense of another to do so, with less political and diplomatic blow back. Admission should require a supra-majority vote, and maybe one nation could force a period of delay, sort of like the House of Lords can as to a bill that is not in a election party's manifesto as I understand it. Turkey also has a problem of having issues being a democratic state that meets minimum Western standards these days, and that is an issue. Finally, I am not sure that Turkey being in NATO really impacts/constrains much what Turkey wants to do anyway.

I guess the bottom line, is that where unanimity is required, it is incumbent on a nation to avoid using its right of veto on a solo or close to it basis, absent compelling circumstances. It is incumbent on one to seek consensus and to go with the flow. If the power to veto is abused, then it needs to just go away.

What is NATO really going to lose as a practical matter if Turkey leaves the alliance in any event, if its behavior suggests it just will do what it wants, NATO or no NATO, in any event?

[Sol]

Turkey also has a problem of having issues being a democratic state that meets minimum Western standards these days, and that is an issue.

Hasn't been a problem in the past!

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Kick Turkey out of NATO or change the requirement for admitting new members from unanimous consent to an overwhelmingly majority consent (like 75%).

In fact, why not do both?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Turkey also has a problem of having issues being a democratic state that meets minimum Western standards these days, and that is an issue.

Hasn't been a problem in the past!

It’s been a roadblock to joining that was only surmountable for Portugal and Turkey during the Cold War, and they came with serious problems. Greece entered as a democracy, but when it wasn’t kicked out after the junta took power, it caused the Cypriot crisis. Turkey then made it worse.

Dictatorships have always caused a number of issues, but the Cold War often created common ground between them and capitalist democracies. The near-global embrace of capitalism, the collapse of the USSR and the decline of the US means they (and their elites) generally have interests that are less aligned with (democratic) Europe’s.

[rc18]

Kick Turkey out of NATO or change the requirement for admitting new members from unanimous consent to an overwhelmingly majority consent (like 75%).

In fact, why not do both?

NATO requires states to defend one another if attacked. That isn't something you can have majority voting for or the commitment is meaningless.

[ingemann]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Except Turkey is in a worse position now, Finland and Sweden have gotten security guarantees from USA, UK and several other countries. It means that Finland and Sweden can just outwait Erdogan, and Erdogan will find that his negotiation position is worse right now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Except Turkey is in a worse position now, Finland and Sweden have gotten security guarantees from USA, UK and several other countries. It means that Finland and Sweden can just outwait Erdogan, and Erdogan will find that his negotiation position is worse right now.

jaichind, who uses "libertarian" as its own antonym, tends to assume that brutal strongmen are megabrained 69-degree-chess grandmasters and liberal-democratic leaders are feckless oafs until proven otherwise.

[brucejoel99]

If extradition of PKK militants who currently have asylum in Finland & Sweden was really all that Erdoğan cared about, then he would've just had his diplomats attempt to secure that through the appropriate diplomatic channels. This is clearly just him using his leverage to try to pivot away from his increasing domestic unpopularity & secure any benefit that might be derived from the resultant political theater of this (like his security demands) in the run-up to next year's elections. There's no way that this doesn't inevitably end in NATO just buying Erdoğan out & Finland/Sweden still acceding to NATO, though.

[jaichind]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Except Turkey is in a worse position now, Finland and Sweden have gotten security guarantees from USA, UK and several other countries. It means that Finland and Sweden can just outwait Erdogan, and Erdogan will find that his negotiation position is worse right now.

Perhaps I am missing something.  Are these guarantees bound by treaties?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Except Turkey is in a worse position now, Finland and Sweden have gotten security guarantees from USA, UK and several other countries. It means that Finland and Sweden can just outwait Erdogan, and Erdogan will find that his negotiation position is worse right now.

Perhaps I am missing something.  Are these guarantees bound by treaties?

These ones aren’t, but there is no formal repercussion for violating NATO’s article 5 - only loss of reputation. If the UK and US abandoned their public, recent pledges, they’d lose a lot of credibility - not to the same extent as if they ignored Article 5, but to a significant extent.

The defence of these states is guaranteed by EU treaty, which means they have access to France’s nuclear deterrent anyway. The wording of the EU defence clauses is a bit weaker, but the loss of credibility would be almost as bad, and practically a death knell for EU-wide defence policy/cooperation.

[ingemann]

One thing that does confuse me about this last-minute Turkish objection is: Why did not the USA and other key NATO countries do private discussions with all NATO members to get their support ahead of time before giving Sweden and Finland the green light to start their application process domestically?

Now Sweden and Finland are committed domestically to NATO it is a lot easier for Turkey to get their pound of flesh than if there were private discussions ahead of time to get Turkey to back this.  This entire affair seems like a very bad diplomatic strategy on the part of the USA.

Except Turkey is in a worse position now, Finland and Sweden have gotten security guarantees from USA, UK and several other countries. It means that Finland and Sweden can just outwait Erdogan, and Erdogan will find that his negotiation position is worse right now.

Perhaps I am missing something.  Are these guarantees bound by treaties?

Treaties like constitutions are glorified toilet paper, they only have the value a country put into it. A security guarantee is the same. Sweden and Finland were already under the EU security guarantee, and everyone expect USA to also intervene in case of a war. The reason NATO membership is important for the two countries, is to increase Finnish and Swedish military integration and make it harder for Russia to make the mistake to think that attacking them would not result in major war. The fact that F&S have decided to join NATO and everyone except the Anatolian goatf****r have accepted it, mean they can start integrating their militaries with neighboring NATO countries and the security guarantee simply makes it more clear to Russia that a war would have disaterous consequences.

As for Erdogan the 69-degree-chess grandmaster, who are running his economy into the ground and dependent on EU subsidies and loan, something the two NATO candidate countries can veto, he's likely gone in a year.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I'll reiterate that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO. In the 21st century (and especially with Erdogan as leader), they serve no purpose being a NATO member.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll reiterate that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO. In the 21st century (and especially with Erdogan as leader), they serve no purpose being a NATO member.

Turkey was actually contributing pretty significantly to international support for Ukraine until quite recently, although much of that may just have been its traditional enmity with Russia.