Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Russia was in fact using a soft power strategy for most of the 2000s and even some of the 2010s.

Georgia (and other peoples in the northern Caucasus) would disagree with you.

I was speaking mainly in generalities. Russia's basically been reliant on selling hydrocarbons and other mineral resources to Europe for the past 20 years; that's, at core, a soft power strategy, not a hard power one. The charm offensive they've pulled re: Germany was a soft power thing if I've ever seen one.
Of course, Georgia is an exception, and one I should have mentioned. But it doesn't really change the broader picture in a fundamental way.

You are right about Germany, but Russia used hard power plenty of times post-1990 - besides Ukraine and Georgia, there were the interventions in Syria and Transnistria, and the provision of troops to provide “stability” in Belarus and Kazakhstan. This is a grey area w.r.t. hard/soft power, but they also gave strong support to the closely linked Wagner PMC group in Libya, Mali and other unstable countries.

This is in addition to committing troops to various international missions like the anti-piracy campaign off the Somalian coast. High-profile poisonings aren’t necessarily military action, but I would argue the polonium/novichok assassinations in Britain constituted a use of hard power.

No state pursues a purely “hard” or “soft” power strategy, but (in recent decades) Russia has probably relied on strength of arms more than any other major power (except the USA). The contrast between its regular conflicts and China’s lack of them is striking.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Peskov says admission of Finland to NATO warrants a "symmetrical response" by Russia.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? They'll try to find a neutral, neighbouring country that wants to form a military alliance with them at this point?

Russia has CSTO, but it lacks credibility in ways the Warsaw Pact did not. Russia and Armenia are the only members who answer other members’ calls to arms to any extent, and Russia did less for Armenia than it could have in the most recent Karabakh War because it wanted to keep improving its relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. It was even worse than America in the Falklands, and I think it’s one of the reasons they don’t have CSTO support in the Ukrainian conflict.

It’s still worth something, of course, but I can’t see anyone jumping to join it at the moment. Serbia is an observer; perhaps they could be coaxed into full membership.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The dictator of Turkey doubles down on his opposition to Sweden's und Finland's NATO memberships.


https://twitter.com/AlArabiya_Eng/status/1526252639046057991

Ultimately, he won't veto - I remain pretty confident about this.

Tinfoil hat time, but I think him telling the Finns and Swedes not to bother negotiating beyond his demands was a signal to the US that his real problem was not with hypothetical FETO super soldiers or Swedish arms sanctions but American arms sanctions, which are far more significant.

Recall that Turkey’s rusting airforce was cut out of the F-35 jet program (for which training had already begun) because of its purchase of Russian air defences, which had occurred because the US was refusing to selling air defences to Turkey along with a license to partially manufacture them.

The US is antsy about training Russian AD against F-35s, but the neat solution would be to give in to Turkey’s demands about the F-35s and sell them air defences in exchange for sending the Russian AD systems to Ukraine. However, this would require diplomacy beyond what Turkey and the USA have proved capable of recently.

There’s one other problem with lifting arms sanctions on Turkey, and this is the danger to Kurdistan. Whatever Western governments do, I hope they also take measures to ensure its survival, but betraying the Kurds is traditional American foreign policy.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Turkey has dropped the pretence of only wanting something from Sweden and Finland:

https://www.twitter.com/haskologlu/status/1526638741787488260
It wants some (toothless, perhaps?) “acknowledgement of concerns” about the YPG and PKK from Sweden and Finland, which is less than it was asking for yesterday. However, it wants lifting of all military sanctions (while keeping its S-400s, it seems) and re-inclusion in the F-35 program, which is up to the USA.

The extortion is pretty grim (considering that Erdogan didn’t raise these concerns any earlier in the process) but I think Turkey’s “allies” will suck it up. It gives the EU more opportunities to slowly supplant NATO as the principal European defence organisation - membership probably provides enough of a deterrent to prevent a Russian attack, although membership of NATO is still a bit more credible.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

In addition to the demands w.r.t. the jet program and military sanctions, Turkey has clarified that it wants something concrete from Finland and Sweden - the extradition of 30 people.

https://www.twitter.com/CasusBellii/status/1526919374472454144

I hope the named individuals are getting the hell out of dodge, but it’s quite probable not all of them will.

Turkey’s demands just seem to get larger by the day, and may not even be sincere. This could well end with the demands being considered unacceptable and Finland and Sweden not getting in - NATO isn’t going to kick Turkey out for those two states.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Leave NATO or just throw Turkey out. I would gladly trade them for Finland and Sweden.

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1526900613434466305

Plenty of European countries might be willing to trade Turkey for Finland and Sweden for EU-related reasons, but the but probably not all, and almost certainly not the US, either. Turkey has more short-term strategic value, and as the American approach to Saudi Arabia should indicate, capacity to consider the long term is very poor.

The second invasion of Cyprus and the repeated betrayals of Kurdistan were smaller-scale, but the US was also prepared to alienate Greece to some extent, which is probably not much less significant than Finland or Sweden.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The demands get upgraded…again:

https://www.twitter.com/CasusBellii/status/1526925189434466305

It’s possible Erdogan wants to keep the Swedes and Finns out to appease Russia, and that none of his asks are sincere.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No need to unnecessarily alienate Erdogan in these times. What he asks for is more than reasonable.

LOL, it absolutely is not reasonable.

Doesn't matter. Turkey calls the shots in the end. If they say no, it's a no - and they're far more important to the alliance than SE + FI ever could be.

I agree Turkey is likely to call the shots because of the perception of its importance by some NATO members, but I’d argue this perception is false - and it’s not just Sweden and Finland.

Turkey wasn’t indicating it had problems with their membership before they put their cards on the table, and most of its demands are of states that are already members; if the demands are considered unacceptable, then the choice is not between Turkey and two Nordics but Turkey and any situation where Turkey can use a veto to reiterate its demands. Giving Turkey too much of what it wants risk pushing Greece and Cyprus even further away, among other problems.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Then leave.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1529075685892964353?s=20&t=NaKDaw9YQ7y...

It’s surely a bluff. He can’t seriously want to put NATO in Greece’s camp in the maritime/Cyprus disputes.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm guessing there is, at least, the concession of "We'll look the other way when you invade Tel Rifaat."

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It's not over until the fat lady sings. Turkey isn't likely to flip again, but there's nothing stopping e.g. Hungary from throwing a spanner in the works as late as the final ratification stage (which Finland and Sweden are weeks away from, if not months).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Erdogan's biggest prize: https://twitter.com/nickschifrin/status/1542093892346077184

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

And just like that, everyone that was screaming about Trump abandoning the Kurds, forgot the Kurds..

Trump definitely abandoned some of the Kurds - but Obama did, too. It's a terrible American tradition. The rhetoric about the YPG in the memorandum is vile, but there's not likely to be much substance to it; so far, I'd say Biden has actually been much less horrible for Kurdish political groups than the average US president (keep in mind that his widely rejected plan for Iraq involved the creation of an independent Kurdish state).

The Kurds may well have been abandoned as a result of this if e.g. a deal to abandon the SDF has been struck behind closed doors, but we've little indication this has happened yet and even if a war happens, it might not be clear that Swedish/Finnish membership was decisive in determining the American stance on such a conflict. I do expect the West to look the other way when Turkey invades Tel Rifaat, but there's not much America could do about that anyway. I guess one guarantee Turkey has gotten is that, if such an invasion occurs, Western allies won't even offer lip service to condemn their actions.

Turkey getting upgraded F-16s will help it a little bit against the Afrin and PKK insurgencies, but their air-to-ground strikes are increasingly dominated by domestic drones rather than expensive jets. Most of the West's support for the Kurds consists of them putting peacekeepers in Kurdish territory that stop a Turkish invasion - if these peacekeepers were removed, the state of Turkey's F-16s would be irrelevant in determining the outcome of any conventional conflict between the SDF and Turkey (the SDF would lose and fall back on an insurgent strategy, if they could).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Finland has announced that their and Sweden's ratification protocols have just been signed, meaning the standard membership action plans and their associated delays have been circumvented. The last step remaining is ratification by all 28 members' legislatures.

The timeline is probably short enough to avoid the extradition cases being resolved beforehand - to be clear, these are likely to end in rejection of extradition requests. Those will anger Turkey, but it won't matter if Finland and Sweden are already in NATO. The remaining wildcard is Hungary.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The Montenegrin Parliament voted yesterday (July 28th) 57-3-11 for Finland, 57-2-11 for Sweden. I guess Dejan Đurović didn't feel it was worth voting against Swedish NATO membership. As you'd expect, all the members who voted "PROTIV" appear to be Serb nationalists.

The US Senate is scheduled to vote on August 1st!

Evidently the Italian National Assembly is voting tomorrow and the US Senate isn't voting today, but lol:

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1554095814611443712?s=20&t=OAr5_W...

McCaskill -> Hawley was possibly one of the worst senate downgrades EVER.

Hawley is merely virtue signalling on an issue that deserves careful consideration, given Finland’s border with Russia. Virtue signalling is most of what he does, and it often plays against the Republican line.

McCaskill, by the end of her tenure, was neither an electoral titan nor true blue where it mattered.

There’ve been plenty of worse D->R switches than this in the last few decades - Feingold to RonJon comes to mind. I’m not even mentioning the “unremarkable D/R -> historical villain” downgrades that have brought some of the worst Senators to power (e.g. McCarthy).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Every single party and every single lawmaker in any NATO country that votes against admission of Sweden and Finland needs to be called out in the starkest terms. They're either Putin's arm or just useful idiots to the Kremlin.

The United States pays way more into NATO than it gets out of it. A vast majority of countries in NATO are refusing to raise the defense budgets up to 2% of GDP, despite pledging to do so earlier. Some people feel like NATO is a scam to the United States, and they just may be right.

There's a good argument against NATO states which don't pay their way.

There are good arguments against Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

The unification of these arguments, however, is pretty flimsy. Finland already spends more than 2% of GDP; Sweden is set to exceed that in a few years.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Seems pretty serious. I thought the Swedish strategy was going to be to make optimistic noises in the expectation that Turkey would keep delaying, but only until after their 2023 election.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1612079633859592192

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Seems pretty serious. I thought the Swedish strategy was going to be to make optimistic noises in the expectation that Turkey would keep delaying, but only until after their 2023 election.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1612079633859592192

I think at this point they should hope for a change after the 2023 election. I remain skeptical that Erdogan will actually be defeated leave office inspite of hyperinflation, an economic crisis and some Erdogan fatigue in Turkey. Relationships would certainly improve with a president from the CHP.

The main issue with hoping for change following the election is that the main opposition leader Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu has been jailed for calling members of the High Election Board "fools" (yes, seriously that's all he said) for canceling his March 2019 Mayoral victory. He won the June 2019 rerun, anyway. But the point is that, since opposition victories in the 2019 municipal elections, the government has been doing anything it can do hinder his chances of victory over Erdogan.

I don't think Erdogan is likely to be ousted - he's probably consolidated enough power to prevent this - but he's clearly a bit nervous (as all long-lasting rulers ought to be) and not taking it for granted.

This is why I thought there was (and possibly still is) some room for Sweden/Finland to hope for change after the election. Erdogan has electoral reasons to drum up nationalist sentinment prior to that and can more easily afford to scale back afterwards.

That being said, I find the Swedish PM's language much more pessimistic than previous statements. I'm not going to read too much into it beyond this assessment.