Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May

[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.

[Lord Halifax]

NATO is an alliance expressly aimed at strengthening member states' national security. Turkey has been a member for decades while Finland and Sweden now want to be in. If Finland and Sweden are actually supporting Kurdish independence fighters using violent means, I don't think it is strange at all for Turkey to demand concessions before they can enter NATO. And I also think it is ridiculous for Swedish foreign policy to be hijacked by one Kurdish MP who apparently holds a massive amount of power.

Yeah I actually agree with this. No love for Erdogran, but the PKK are terrorists and if Sweden is turning a blind eye to them that deserves a response.

They are terrorists in the sense that the US (and UK) desperately want Turkey on-side, and officially designating them terrorists is the price. Turning a blind eye to Turkish genocide is a price the US is very willing to pay. Same reason why the West didn't come rushing to the aid of the Armenians in the way it has with Ukraine...

In retrospect, perhaps our recognizing The Armenian Genocide last year was a bit premature. We could have potentially used a promise not to do so at least for the foreseeable future as alternative leverage against turkey. I'm not saying I opposed that recognition-quite the opposite- but it's fairly symbolic and has more impact on turkeys view of the world than our own. Priorities and all that.

Not recognizing one of the worst genocides ever committed should never be used as a political tool, it was a disgrace it took so long.

[Lord Halifax]

That's nice. One way or the other the goal needs to be to strip from the problem children states that don't contribute much the veto power.

In NATO Turkey is both the biggest problem child and one of the biggest contributors.

[Lord Halifax]

(hopefully they'd still let Finland in?)

The Finnish government has made it clear they won't join without Sweden since that would leave them without strategic depth and their militaries cooperate closely, so it doesn't really matter.

The Turkish military hasn't really been tested against a peer adversary and the country's economy and political system have significant structural weaknesses, so it remains to be seen whether it's really a rising power in the long run.

[Lord Halifax]

How does one go about kicking a country out of NATO? Is there even a mechanism for that?

There is none.

That's what I suspected.

So then, "NATO should kick out Turkey (and/or Hungary/whomever)" is a nonsensical statement, and everyone should stop making such nonsensical statements.

That's not really true. A country can be found to be in material breach of the treaty, which would allow the other member states to terminate the treaty in their relations with the defaulting state.

There is legal argument that violating the principles underlying the treaty constitute a material breach if they are so extensive in scope, so severe and so persistent as to effectively disavow or repudiate the treaty, and that compliance with the values set out in the preamble and Article 2 are considered essential for the accomplishment of the object and purpose of the treaty.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/

I've written about it before and can elaborate if need be.

[Lord Halifax]

Reminder that Turkey is a colonizer. Just like the US, the Turkish people replaced the native people with their own. "Turkey" did not exist when Troy stood.

Out of curiosity, what is the DNA makeup of the people of Turkey?  It could be that like in Britain, most are natives with only a smattering of the DNA of their conquerors -and in Britain's case, most prominently Anglo-Saxon.  Although the story of the Anglo-Saxon 'conquest' has been put into question, and it could just be a massive and largely peaceful migration to eastern England.  Which makes me wonder if the Arthurian legend is more applicable to Anglo-Saxon England's struggles with the Vikings (who had identical DNA). And perhaps King Alfred was the real-life King Arthur.  

Anyway, as far as Turkey's DNA makeup is concerned, does anyone know?

Turks are overwhelmingly descended from the local Anatolian population and have far less Turkic ancestry than Turkic people further east, then there is an Ottoman Era (incl. Muslim refugees from the Russo-Turkish War) genetic impact from the Balkans which is substantial in Western Turkey.

The Turkic peoples mixed with other groups on their way west such as Iranian tribes and Tocharians, but the core was East Asian (they likely originally came from Manchuria). Modern Anatolian Turks have only about 15% East Asian DNA on average, while Kazakhs have around 80% and Yakuts c. 99% East Asian DNA.

Afaik it's fairly well established that the English are mainly descended from Celtic Britons, not the Anglo-Saxons. Like Anatolia there is a lot of genetic continuity on the British Isles where various conquerors took over and the language changed but while they naturally passed on their genes and had more offspring than local men due to being a dominant group the core of the population remained unchanged.

[Lord Halifax]

May 2023?

The first trojan horse in history was done by the ancient Greeks in Turkey.

Now, Turkey itself is the trojan horse. Sabotaging NATO from within.

Reminder that Turkey is a colonizer. Just like the US, the Turkish people replaced the native people with their own. "Turkey" did not exist when Troy stood.

There was no replacement below the elite level, it's a case of the locals gradually assimilating into the culture of the conquerors while also influencing it in the process.

The early 20th century genocides and the attempt at forced assimilation of the Kurds is a different kettle of fish, but I wouldn't call that colonization.

[Lord Halifax]

Is Cyprus a European country? Is Ukraine? Are Georgia and Armenia?

Unlike the others Ukraine has 100% of its territory in Europe, so not sure why you included it. Ukraine is unquestionable a European country.

[Lord Halifax]

I think another big issue with Turkey as an EU member is the giant border with syria and iraq: ironically if Kurdistan was independent they might have a palatable buffer.

If the the Istanbul metro area and Eastern Thrace became a "city state" it would probably be allowed to join.