Turkey Is Still Blocking Sweden: What Should NATO Do?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 фев 2023
- Sign up to Brilliant (the first 200 sign ups get 20% off an annual premium subscription): brilliant.org/tldrglobal/
Watch our full interview with Baiba Braže (NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy): • Could China divide NAT...
As tensions continue to simmer between Turkey and other NATO members over foreign policy, questions are being raised about whether Turkey will leave the alliance. In this video, we explore the factors at play, including Turkey's priorities in the Middle East and its strained relationship with the US, and the potential implications of a departure. With public opinion in Turkey divided on the issue, is Turkey's future in NATO under threat?
💬 Twitter: / tldrnewsglobal
📸 Instagram: / tldrnewsglobal
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/storeTLDR
TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We aim to give you the information you need, quickly and simply so that you can make your own decision. TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by just a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following, and backing us on Patreon. Thanks!
///////////////////////////
1 - www.republicworld.com/world-n...
2 - tass.com/defense/1566793
3 - tass.com/defense/1566793
4 - www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2...
5 - RobinBrooksIIF/st...
6 - apnews.com/article/islamic-st...
7 - www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
8 - www.dailysabah.com/politics/d...
9 - www.nato.int/nato_static_fl20...
Turkey shot down a russian fighter jet resulting in 2 dead russian soldiers in 2015, im not so sure if they would have done the same while not being in NATO...
I think Turkey is very aware of the security NATO provides, and NATO knows of the immens importance of Turkeys access to the black sea. Turkey wont leave, and NATO will not kick them out either.
Turks are well aware they can't count on NATO as NATO did not have it's back after this incident or the ones before (wasn't the first time Russian jets violated Turkish airspace).
Actualy the navigator was saved but unfortunately the pilot was shot by syrian rebels as he wss descending with his parachute and another russian soldier a marine was also killed by the rebels. Rebels funded by western nations.
Turkey joined NATO in 1950 (?) because it was afraid of Russian aggression, particularly Russia has always wanted the Bosphorus. Membership allows them to flip flop between flirtation and hostility knowing NATO has their back. The shoot down was in the context of backing opposite sides of the Syrian Civil war, they're also on the opposites sides between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The overflight was barely a minute from memory and the shoot down breached NATO rules of engagement which is to first incept hostile/unidentified aircraft. The last thing NATO wants is one trigger happy member starting WWIII (today that means the Baltics and Poland!)
The shooting down of the Russian jet is a more complex issue though. An illegal fraction inside the Turkish government (the Gulenist movement) was behind this action. They had dominance over the air force at the time and they were in a fight with the AKP government. They knew it would strain relations with Russia and put the Turkish government in a difficult spot. It was a power play between the Islamist AKP and another Islamist group fighting for dominance in Turkey. In the end, political Islamism is not good and Turkey is learning that the hard way, right now.
This is also one of the reasons NATO and Turkey are constantly at odds, Islamism and NATO categorically don't get along. The AKP government in Turkey is about to crumble, so hopefully a traditional, secular, western-oriented government will come in its place and things will get back to normal.
Exactly, both sides need each other and only has much to lose when separated. Conflicting interests doesn't change that.
0:07 They weren't a founding member, they joined in 1952 alongside Greece
because the United States is forcing Turkey to join Nato or it will get economic sanctions
Yeah, it would be hard for turkey to be founding member of north ATLANTIC treaty organization
Oh good, I'm not the only one who noticed.
@@lucjanl1262 same goes for Greece.
And the Turks allowed the Greeks to rejoin NATO in 1982.
Finland's membership is far more important and strategic to NATO and Europe than Sweden's, and I think Finland should not wait until Turkey is fine with Sweden too. Finland has a 1340 km border with Russia and unlike Sweden, putler regime claims Finland as historical Russian territory which puts it at risk of invasion. Finland needs to be protected under article 5 and integrated into a NATO framework for existential reasons, to even get to Sweden, Russia needs to go through Finland first.
you are delusional if you think Russia even can go to Sweden.
Russia can only play a defensive strategy in modern time to defend itself from foreign invasions.
Russia won't be able to invade any other European country from now on. technologically it has no edge, besides maybe the nukes but it is highly unlikely Russia would ever use them in a war.
unless of course the Russian regime wants to commit a nuclear war and human apocalypse, including self destruction.
But with sweden as Nato member Nato would have full acess to the baltic sea and the island Gotland.
I can't see how Swedes could get angry towards their Eastern neighbor for joining up without them first, since they more or less screwed this up all by themselves. For both to join, after all, it's only a matter of time and once the Turkish elections are over, the tune will change immediately. Erdogan is only playing a short-sighted game for his own benefit, which will bite him in the ass in the long run, not changing the inevitable outcome that both will eventually join the alliance.
You are also forgetting about Kaliningrad, in which Russia can access the Baltic Sea, hence Sweeden
You are mistaken about one thing, it is us (Baltic and Scandinavian) members of NATO who need Finland as part of alliance to feel protected and assured, not the other way around. They are the only sure fire way to lock Russia away from the region. With Sweden we would be able to present active danger just in case. What good is Turkey for us? The only benefit of having them in the alliance is that they are unable to outright work with Russia and China against us.
Given Turkey's geographic position being the land bridge to the middle east, Russia, and the rest of Europe, not to mention being the country that connects the Black Sea with the Mediterranean, getting on Turkey's bad side would be against NATO's strategic interests.
Aha so you are an appeasement guy. Gotcha.
@@georgedevries3992 Not appeasement, just saying NATO shouldn't be too quick to kick out Turkey. I legitimately fear they may side with Russia if things get desperate enough.
@@AloisAgos Of course Turkey has one of the most strategic geographies in the world but I would also point out that Moscow has lusted after Constantinople for centuries. It doesn’t seem like a major threat today in 2023 but 10 years ago we wouldn’t have thought a full on invasion of Ukraine was likely either.
I would think in the very least, a diplomatically isolated Turkey would be in for some attempts at destabilization or asymmetric maneuvers.
Turkey's bad side? Nobody cares, try being on the bad side of America. Your country ceases to exist.
@@AloisAgos Finland and Sweden holds more strategic value
Its so bice seeing you guys grow and now being capable of interviewing world leaders and so on
can they at least fix their crooked background shelf? maybe even build that wire into the wall. low quality content creators.
@@MelbourneMeMe watch something else then 🤟
Honestly, I don't like the interviews. I come here for summaries and analysis, not to watch some politician producing themselves.
@@postron5649 So... don't watch it...
@@postron5649 They can do both? Just don't want the politician videos?
NATO wouldnt let them leave due to the control of black sea. Turkey is too important strategically.
💯
Turkey does it’s own thing, NATO seem to have little influence on their decisions. How does Turkey leaving make any difference?
Actually Finland and Sweden are more important strategically than black sea. That's why people are wondering if Turkey is more trouble than it is worth.
@@playnochat Finland and Sweden not even close to Turkey by their strategic location. Also, Finland has better relations with Turkey, and will be allowed in NATO.
@@playnochat lf you really think baltic countries are more important than Turkey, god help us all
Happy you guys are doin interviews with big names. Much love
I've said it a hundred times over the last year.... this thing WILL get worked out because it's in everyone's best interests that it does and they all know it even if they won't admit it. This is just another example of the kind of problem/solution, give/take that makes up diplomacy.
And furthermore, there are two things that must be firmly understood about Sweden. 1) It is not currently under any direct threat nor is it likely to be any time soon.... who's going to threaten it; Russia, who can't even get the best of Ukraine?... and 2) Sweden is and has been for decades, a NATO member in all but name.
Both Sweden and Finland are about as close to being NATO members as it's possible to be without actually being members. There are security arrangements in place and have been for years, the Swedish and Finnish armed forces are both formidable entities in their own rights and are fully interoperable with NATO in all critical ways and most important of all, they both live in a very secure neighborhood.
Even if they're not official NATO members, even if they'd never even applied, they're surrounded by NATO and any harm which might come to them would also be perceived as harm coming to NATO itself and the alliance is never going to let that happen.
So everyone just chill.... this thing WILL get solved.
That's for the breath of objectivity.
The world is crazy ,so don't be too arrogant,standing as a single or two brooms are weaker than a bunch.
Glad to hear you say that, but by now keeping Sweden out of NATO has been a Schtick of Turkeys for decades, its no longer credibly a question of turkish doubts about swedish membership, its plainly turkish undermining of the western alliance. As Russia constitutes an exterior threat, so Turkey seeks to weaken the alliance from within - and why you ask? Because all authoritatrians will always fear the inherent threat of democracies, and hamstringing and being divisive are the only available avenues of attacking NATO currently that do not lead into an open conflict.
Agreed, it's still annoying Turkey is being a little beatch troll from hell, but... yes. This is a non issue most likely
@@Corny80 When has Turkey tried to keep Sweden out of NATO before? Sweden has never even applied until now and the point of dispute between them is recent.
The NATO charter doesn't have a built-in expulsion mechanism but it doesn't need one. International law recognizes material breach of a treaty as grounds for the suspension of a member from a multilateral treaty. So, for example, if you have a defensive alliance between several countries all defending against aggression from an outside party, and if one the members starts getting really friendly with that party while it is actively being aggressive in a way that could threaten other members of the alliance that could be considered a material breach of the treaty and grounds for suspension or expulsion from the treaty. Just as an example. The proposition that a member of an alliance can undermine a multilateral treaty and we all just have to deal with it is factually wrong and absurd.
But this is not the issue in this case tho? it's between Turkey and a (currently) NON-member state
International law is more like what you would call guidelines than actual rules lol
The NATO summits in 2018 and 2019 both involved official statements that "Material Breach" could be used to expel a member. Material Breach is part of International Law from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in 1969. - particularly 60b “the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.” This allows the organisation to remove a member state that doesn't; observe the rules/requirements of the treaty. The NATO treaty is full of "values" like "determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law." So if Erdogan does something "naughty" to win the election this year NATO could declare "material breach". Similarly if Turkey attacked Greece or Syria. To be honest they could claim "rule of law" already if they really really want a "trigger" - It's essentially a political decision. NATO could have declared "material breach" on Greece and Turkey after their various coups but didn't or on the US for invading Iraq etc etc. Also even before the 1969 Convention, when they were writing the NATO treaty there was active discussions on the need to be able to kick out a member that went communist and it was declared that it would possible to kick out a "rogue" member. Side note - one of the unspoken benefits of NATO is that if one country, say Germany, attacked another NATO country, say France or Belgium, the aggressor is in "Material Breach" and expelled and the alliance supports the territorial integrity of the country that's attacked, thus France or Belgium. So NATO guarantees peace between its members.
@@vladimirbazhaev7851 except turkey is close to russia, when they can both gain something. Good example is a couple of years ago when both of them went in to syria together, dividing the area that the us held before leaving
Turkey is working with Russia though.
Don't forget that Turkiye wants to build their own federation of Turkic peoples with countries in the old Soviet block. The one who is hindering that is Russia since these countries hold a lot of their people and therefore they are linked economically with them.
Not all of us?
@@onurderebey Alright. I should have said those who rule.
Those who rule does not have an intention of uniting Turkic countries. Erdoğan has speeches in which he states that nationalistic ideas has no place in their religon. They are not Nationalists, they are İslamists. İslamism contradicts nationalism.
@Zaydan Alfariz became a habit for most of us since they're different keys in the keyboard
@@tk5gqj514 He is a pure pragmatist. He knows nothing but pragmatism.
Umm, Turkey was not a founding member. They joined in 1952, three years after the founders.
True. They were an "early" member, together with Greece.
Instead of kicking out Turkey, NATO would do better by "emergency reform" of NATO constitution, which will weaken the veto against "qualified marjorities" what is also done for EU currently. It would be stupid for western block to divorce from Turkey completely. The Russia-China alliance will get a new weighty member against NATO ! But NATO can abandon the veto system as emergency operation. So Sweden can join NATO and Turkey remains in NATO too. But meaning, that NATO and EU must take more care about the Turkisch - Swedish conflict theme.
Seriously? A non unanimous defensive alliance.
You will ask a country to send it's men to die defending a nation they did not want to be allied with?
Have you really thought this through, or are you insane?
@@seanrogers8421 Accutally Turks will be the last to be called from NATO to defend Sweden or Finnland. And from NATOs point of view, Turkish forces are less prone to be included in any NATO activity than USA or central european forces.
@@wolfgangrenner4152 Article 5… if Russia invaded a Nato member, they are ALL at war.
This is not a humanitarian organization, it’s a military alliance just like the Allies and Axis.
@@seanrogers8421 no, they are all considered to be attacked. And if the attacked country calls for aid, you have to give it to them, it doesn't even necessarily mean armed forces.
@@youareliedtobythemedia ah, so it’s just a social club.
Why worry, then! It obviously is not important.
It's a complicated relationship indeed. It's true that probably NATO hasn't played a significant role in Türkiye's interests, but Türkiye hasn't made it easy either. But at the end of the day, I think this is one case of they are still better together than separated. Hopefully that leads to better relations in the future.
Turkey is a shameless lout, a scrounger begging for NATO handouts, but gives nothing in reciprocation. We will do just fine with the Scandilot than the Turks imo. Nothing but a ball and chain. Let Turkey be ErdoGONE 😂
#Turkey
If Erdogan goes I could see that happening easily.
What was the reason given though for not helping them in Syria? Just curious
@@user-op8fg3ny3jit's a defensive alliance! Why would anyone help them invade another country?
He's just trying to tell conservative Turks that he's strong and he's doing something that plays well in a muslim country which helps him in election
He will probably just let them in the second after the election
Then why did he agree to Finland joining?
@@vladimirbazhaev7851 to win time
@@vladimirbazhaev7851 Because he needs to only block one country, that is enough for his tough guy looks while not cost 'too much' return pressure.
@@vladimirbazhaev7851 Not many Muslims in Finland
Even Erdogran realised that you are more influential on the bloc by being inside the bloc… 😂😂
Reminds me of Brexit
Mmmh. It reminds me of something in another country. What can it be?
Great video!
"Odd one" that's a bloody understatement I'd say.
Military alliances tend to do that. e.g. WW2
There would be 0 benefits for Turkey in leaving. But then, brexit happened. And that also had 0 benefits, so who knows
Yes 0 benefits like having full sovereignty on your country, being able to set our own VAT, having the fastest COVID vaccine rollout
Yes 0 benefits
@@chrisklitou7573 yes 0 benefits. "Sovereignity" is an utterly meaningless buzzword.
I'm confident you are lying about VAT but even if you're not, who cares? Our economy is in utter shambles.
Our vaccine rollout started strong but very quickly fell behind the rest of the EU and remained there for the rest of the pandemic. Not to mention the fact that we had higher excess deaths anyway so again, who cares? (Also our vaccine rollout had nothing to do with being outside the EU)
@@eelvis1674 you think sovereignty is meaningless?
British men and women died in two world wars to be a free independent country not to be bossed around by Germany
You should be ashamed yourself
@@chrisklitou7573 The commenter likely doesn't mean sovereignty itself is "meaningless", rather the appeal to sovereignty by Brexiteers is meaningless because they don't actually mean it. It's just a buzzword they use to get what they want. They convince people to ignore material harm from Brexit by making an emotional appeal (mostly to older voters) by falsely invoking "sovereignty".
@@chrisklitou7573 explain to me just how we are "less sovereign" and exactly why I should care.
If we join the EU of our own free will, get a democratic say on the rules that govern us, and receive greater consumer and worker protections - why do I care about so called "sovereignty"
I would like to think that most of those men and women were fighting for the future prosperity of their fellow countryman, not for a nebulous "sovereignty".
👏👏👏Have been watching you guys for a while you do such good work
Your MSC interviews were fantastic! I intend on watching all of them. You had great questions for important people.
This channel is fantastic. It's really nice to hear good questions to these political leaders; not just stupid domestic policy stuff. It's super interesting to hear their opinions on the real levers of power
not really. Some pieces like this is stupid.
It's done in an old fashion way from before Brexit or Trump was a thing.
They completely forget how stupid positions can act. (not to mention people like Hitler, Wilhelm II. or other crazy world leaders)
Btw. I also like the channel. But stupid has to be called as stupid.
And thank you for your opinion. I think this is way too often forgotten that disagreeing doesn't mean disliking.
Love the format of "three reasons why = yes, three reasons why = no". Genuinely an awesome format. I get about forty minutes in the AM to listen to news briefings. Peter Zeihan, China Update and TLDR make the cut. Well done
IDK about Zeihan, in the few of his videos I've watched he kept predicting the end of the world, or at least the end of something.
@@sogerc1 Yeah I disagree with his forecasts too. But his knowledge on stuff is fantastic. However, I agree with you that the US is not going to just completely leave the global system. Obviously. If anything a new Cold War is starting. But I also appreciate how insanely hard it is to predict things
It's a really stupid format because they're using politician words from Vatan Parti who didn't even get %0,6 of votes in past 40 years hahaha. They're nobody lol. Nobody is talking about getting out of NATO in Turkey. There are way more Anti-NATO rhetoric from politicians in Italy and France. Macron said, "NATO is brain-dead" for example and He's President. Not someone like who got %0,6 vote like Vatan Party.
@@ardaturkoglu11 Well those would be stupid points; not the format in its entirety. Although I agree with you. As an American, I say we just let Turkey manage the Middle East. Let Iran and the Saudis weaken eachother and keep Turkey as the NATO partner keeping watch over the region.
@@joenichols3901 Dude they use in the video literally got 0,6% vote in elections, he's nobody lol.
What I think is the data is presented so well in this video.
I enjoy seeing your channel becomming more and more professional and a serious new provider. No collorbooks and badges anymore ;-)
NATO will not kick out Turkey for the simple reason that Turkey’s location is of great strategic importance to NATO.
As with everything, thats a question of priority - not necessity.
@@Corny80 NATO is first and foremost a military alliance.
@@Puntonghua So? Your point with that comment? Its not a necessity because the rest of NATO wouldn't fall or cese to function by Turkey leaving. So its a priority.
@@Corny80 just like NATO will not cease to function without Sweden joining! Right now Turkey is more strategically valuable for NATO than Sweden.
@@Puntonghua No because Turkey does not share in western democratic values, and it is dawning on NATO members that this is a problem when dealing with other autocrats like Putin. When it comes down to the basics there is no alliance between Turkey and the rest of NATO at all.
Click bait question obvious answer is NO - your viewers are educated - most will know the geographical importance of Turkey vis a vi geo politics
Good thing these sorts of decisions aren't up for a referendum like Brexit
This channel is actually one of the most deluded when it comes to geopolitics. It's basically Reddit-tier but on RUclips.
No, and the idea that we expel an ally of 70 years for Sweden, who have swatted away every offer to join before now, is ridiculous.
Why would we do that… they hav the second best military in the alliance. As an American, I would never support turkey leaving.
I dont think turkey was a founding member of nato. It joined the alliance fairly early in the 1950s but this was after its creation.
Correct
12 founding members of the Alliance: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States (1949). Türkiye: 1952
Correct Turkey joined after the Korean war.
It makes no sense for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to focus on Pacific states.
Who are those pacific states
NATO is kinda former colonizer club and those who aspire to be
Turkey didn't enter NATO until 1952, NATO was formed in 1949. The London daily seems to get a lot of minor details like this wrong.
The tricky part between Sweden and Finland or Turkey is they’re equally as valuable members for the alliance. Ideally it’s not about picking one or the other but getting Turkey on board with them. Keeping everyone would pretty much tie up any remaining geographic weaknesses left. Both have their issues and I can see why Sweden and Turkey are disagreeing from both sides but neither really wants the middle ground.
However, since Turkey already is a member Sweden needs to listen to Turkey, not the other way around. Sweden asks Turkey to do a lot of homework if it wants to join the EU and since Sweden is IN the club, Turkey has to follow the rules. In this case, Turkey is the demander, while Sweden is the "demandee". Sweden has fullfill the requirements (stop harboring PKK terrorists, etc.), if it wants to be in. I, in all honesty, can't see why everyone is so surprised by this.
@@direnius US holds the NATO charter, so the only one who should be able to make demands is the US.
Luckily, the leaders of NATO, Turkey, Finland, & Sweden understand this and are acting calmly while balancing the interests of all three sides.
However, Sweden does want the middle ground, in fact, they have reached many of the concessions demanded by Turkey. The biggest concession Sweden could not make was violating their Supreme Court's decisions (the executive & legislative branches literally can't because of the Constitution). And the biggest reason Erdogan doesn't want to meet in the middle is that he wants his fighter jets and he wants to win the upcoming elections in the summer.
@Scuff Tuff, Geographically speaking Sweden isn't even 5% as value to Nato as Finland and Turkey.
Militarily speaking, well it isn't even close.
@@williamdavis9562 Sweden is more powerful than Finland. Only thing Finland has more of is alot of dudes running around in a forest.
Better for them to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Oddly,.... yeah.
Just go through with Finland induction, and afterwards give a multi-lateral (willing countries) mutual defense treaty to Sweden, thus getting around Turkey's opposition.
It would be nice if things could be nice and clean, but things on paper and facts on the ground need not be the same.
Finnish people, throw their Swedish brethren under the buss, “please let us join, please - you can deal with Sweden later or something”, it’s so lame that you let Turkey divide us like that and not even stop to reflect on it.
@@j1202275 So why do Swedes feed terrorists?
@@batuhankara672 they do not so so willingly, but in Sweden you need proof that someone has acted out, supported, or planned a terrorist act. Otherwise people are free to do as they will, and to say what they please or to join whatever political movement they please. Soon a new law will make it illegal to associate with terrorist organizations thou.
@@j1202275 Because of these events, you are increasing Erdogan's votes in Turkey. Erdogan is very weak right now, but he is trying to take undecided people with him because Sweden feeds terrorists. We do not want to lose when the opposition is so strong in Turkey. But other countries protect terrorists as erdogan wants, so they will get votes.
Yes that makes sense. Only that didn't work well for Ukraine when the signatories were Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. We can't get rid of Turkiye because of their location. And their alliance with the Caucusus people neighboring Russia.
Greece blocked Macedonia enetering Nato, but Nato didint removed Greece from Nate so what, Turkey is a major player of Nato. Greece asked Macedonia to changed its name, we changed it so we could join Nato and EU, Turkey on the other hand she asks for terrorist which caused many deaths within its borders.
I can understand the terrorist extradition but some of the people Erdoan asked for are Political opponents/dissidents/critics of Erdoan and how he has run the country.
That is the main reason Sweden's integration into NATO is taking so long, and if I remember Sweden's courts prevents the extradition from happening on the basis of Free Speech/Press, which is very admirable and we should always side with the individual freedom of people trying to expose the corruption of there government. As we have seen recently with the construction of building in Turkiey and the devastating aftermath corruption has on the people.
Apologies if I spelled something wrong or it is improper English as it is not my first language.
@@thelizard556 Like who? Who is this guy that opposed Erdogan and fled the country because Erdogan would jail him. Millions oppose Erdogan everyday, you know what that changes? JACKSHIT. He is the dictator at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I OR anyone says. So no, those names are all associated with terrorist organizations such as the Gulen organization, or the PKK.
@@thelizard556 Did Sweden extradite ANY of the terrorists though?
terrorists for Erdogan. It's like a pov.
@@Maddog-xc2zv yeah I stand with the kurds they just want the country that was promised to them, its just the Turks couldn't deal with their egos being destroyed from the First WW?
@1:30 I just wanna know why the American flags are rocking side to side in unison but the Turkish ones aren't...
It’s not strategically useful to include Sweden and Finland if you lose the Bosporus Straits. Denmark is all that’s important in the Baltic because of the Danish Straits.
@@jimsdeadmilton1899 You know Ukrainians like to call the Russian as orcs. But I've always compared them to the Angmarim. Fits them more imo. Turks though, they can easily be orcs. Especially if you take a look at their language. Ugly as fuck both in appearance and sound! Guess we found the Black Tongue of Earth.
No, with global warming the arctic regions are opening up, requiring more countries to cooperate around security. Once trade opens up in the arctic it will render the mid-eastern Suez route obsolete.
The Baltic is potentially as important as the Black Sea, if not more.
@@juanmillaruelo7647 that’s what I’m saying, Denmark and Turkey will alway be more important strategically than Sweden and Finland.
Honestly, I'm not convinced that Turkey will be on the side of NATO if an escalation with Russia does occur. Ultimately they need to decide whether they want to commit to having allies and not treat everything as a hostage-situation.
Turkey is already fighting against Russia on 3 fronts
@@robintoz NATO is the one saving turkey from Russia.
Not the other way around.
@@MrEssedis I agree with you but you must agree Turkey has been fighting Russia for hundreds of years
@@MrEssedis At the same time, the only thing that protects Turkey from NATO is that it is a Nato member.
Turkey isn't a founding members, they joined the alliance with Greece in the first enlargement of Nato in the 18 February 1952.
I hope they do, and they should never be allowed in the EU either.
In regards to Asian nations joining NATO.
I still think that a PaTO could be an interesting mirror of NATO.
Bring the idea forward of NATO and PaTO being joint members in a two member pact then start with the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, New Zealand, and Australia. After it's started and "partnered" with NATO then the two can go a long ways towards helping each other get stronger. If turkey doesn't play ball with NATO then PaTO can also add international pressure in addition. Or the two working together can hash out plans to increase the membership size in PaTO one at a time in a way that benefits both.
There are a handful of defence agreements among the countries you list, and many are tied to the US.
...this then brings in NATO by association.
For example...
Australia and Japan recently signed a mutual defence agreement. If either are attacked, then the other helps to defend.
The US has an agreement with Japan.
Australia, the UK and the US have AUKUS.
Sprinkle in some "QUAD" and "Five Eyes" for good measure.
There are many agreements like these for the region.
they tried SEATO but it didnt work.
Too much bad blood between Japan and South Korea, the Phillipines has been flip-flopping depending on who is in power, and nobody in the Pacific wants a fight with China or to antagonize China, so unless everyone becomes convinced that a military conflict is inevitable, there's just not the impetus for it.
China absolutely wants U.S.-style hegemony in the Pacific, whatever its eye-rolling inducing protestations to the contrary are, and I actually get that - whether it's morally right or not, powerful nations inevitably will want to project their power, though China would do better to at least be more honest about it.
Unlike Russia, though, the economic dependencies between China and the U.S., China and Australia, China and Taiwan, China and Japan, China and South Korea are IMMENSE, and it would be catastrophic economically to absolutely everyone all around if there were sanctions, let alone disruption of the trade lanes.
China has staked a massive amount of its national prestige on regaining Taiwan, though, and at some point they have to make good on that or be discredited domestically. My guess is they are hoping for the U.S. to become too embroiled in domestic turmoil at some point this decade to be able to entertain a defense of Taiwan, and without the U.S., Taiwan would eventually probably fall.
I'm not sure what happens if the U.S. holds its crap together for the next decade, though; at some point China's demographic bomb is going to be impossible to ignore and hurt both economic and military opportunities for Chinese hegemony.
@@heretic-668 Yes, you are right about economic reliance.
China tried a trade war with Australia and refused to buy Australian coal. Within months many provinces were without power over the winter and some businesses stopped producing in China.
They bought the coal.
Then they tried to be a bully with iron ore until they realised there isn't enough supply outside of Australia to meet their demands.
...but at least they tried.
There are still sanctions in place even now, so your statement that these can't happen because of the possible financial devastation has evidence against it.
@@yt.personal.identification TBC, I'm not saying it CAN'T happen at all, just that there is going to be more reluctance than was the case with Russia.
Sweden can wait. Turkiye has been waiting over 30-years to join the EU.
Sorry, but the Western countries and specially USA won't will wait longer that one of their most important European allies still wait so long on the NATO approval membership due a political blackmail by a Muslim country, they won't tolerate this unlike the long blackmail that North Macedonia faced by Greece in both NATO and EU membership during 14 years, in this historical and confront moment with Russia.
@@herluisalvarado8366 🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷
Whats the point of a voting system if you just kick out people who don't agree with you....
It is not a matter of opinion. Turkey has entered into conditions in the North Atlantic Treaty that it does not meet. Already in the preamble it says, "the members profess peace, democracy, freedom and the rule of law."
Sweden is one of the most democratic countries in the world and Turkey is on a par with Kazakhstan and Rwanda in the bottom third of the list.
Turkey would have to be kicked out for not meeting the treaty criteria, even though this is not provided for.
The point of having NATO is that all countries who are members will assist each other. If Türkiye doesn't value Finnish or Swedish contributions, or doesn't want to contribute to the defense of either Nation, then fine. Create an exception whereby Türkiye isn't to receive compulsory assistance from Sweden or Finland, or give any in return. We could even call it the Ankara Compromise.
What of All the countries that would rather that Turkey left? If they insisted on exceptions as well, Turkey would defacto be expunged.
@@Corny80 That's also fine. Turkey already saw NATO's lack of assistance during the mid 2010s onward when it was clashing with Russia, and instead suffered arms embargoes while states sold weapons to Russia and some like France and Greek Cyprus were even allied with Russia.
Why? Why can't Sweden just accept Turkey's demands? Turkey is expected to follow Sweden's demands if it wants to join the EU and Turkey isn't bargaining concerning any of these demands. How is this any different?
@@direnius Türkiye's demands, or rather Erdogan's demands, are against the rulings of the Supreme Court of Sweden. Expulsion of persons who would face undue persecution, allowing religious sentimentality to affect matters of state, and violating the Constitution are things that nobody reasonable should expect Sweden to do.
@@CJusticeHappen21 Change the laws then. Turkey has changed many of its laws for them to be compatible with European norms. Why? Because it wants to join the EU and Sweden demands Turkey to change its laws. Why is Turkey expected to do this, but not Sweden?
A possibility is to make a parallel organisation with a different name - "Baltic Atlantic Security Counsil", BASC, inviting members to join who approve of Finland and Sweden. Could in principle also comprehend Ukraine - so they "have not joined Nato.." This counsil basically is a copy of Nato, and they could have their own office in fx. Polan.
We already have EU. All it needs is an army and there it is
@@Corny80 Correct. However, a separate organisation could also include Norway, US, UK, Canada, and be a way to associate Ukraine, Moldova and potentially others in the future. Many good forces, who may not be readily members of the EU/Nato, which russia at least officially, has so much against.
In a way, what our respective countries already have in terms of military, we can call an "EU/Nato" army. We just need more of it. Seems like wast majority in Europa wants that now.
@@Corny80 the EU lacks real military power when compared to the US. Besides, you saw how some EU countries were reluctant to send aid to Ukraine and stand up to Russia when the war started. An EU army will never command the same level of respect as NATO due to A) Lack of military power and B) EU countries often care more about their own interests than larger geopolitical and strategical goals.
@@markdowding5737 A - like I said it needs an army, B - load of rubbish.
@@Corny80 A- unless EU countries put proper funding into it, it won't become anywhere close to the US army. B- It's not a load of rubbish, look at Hungary with Orban and Germany with Russian gas. More often than not the EU lacks unity to do certain decisions
06:22 Turkey requested Patriot support for which they received from the United States, Germany and the Netherlands in 2012. The Turks put the Americans in substandard barracks with no potable water. We had a water unit to make sure the water was potable. The building where I stayed at was not finished yet so had no heaters in the winter till we bought heaters. The power would go out for days and we would be running on generators that we brought with us from Germany. To be fair the power was out for the Turks too on this side of the base. I dont know the German and Dutch sites had these issues. Our mission was to protect Turkey from Scuds fired from Syria not jets from Russia. The Scud threat was not really a threat. We were there for a year and only a few Scuds were fired. I pray for the people of Gaziantep and hope things recover from the earthquke. The people of Gaziantep were super nice to us.
No don't kick them out, just change the rules...make it that it takes two votes to veto...a single vote is ridiculous anyway. The more members you have the harder it is to get a unanimous vote. just change the rule and it will make Turkey impotent.
Hungary?
Why would Turkey *voluntarily* leave when it's a huge bargaining chip?
The United States is forcing Turkey to join Nato or it will get economic sanctions
they just hate nato while in it
Turkey won't leave because Turkey is bigger than Erdogan and both Turkey and the world knows this fact.
what has nato done good to turkey anyway
@@topraktansak8385kept it from a Russian/Soviet invasion lol
American here. long term I dont think Turkey interests will line up with the US's or Europe for the most part. I think they are more interested in rebuilding the Ottoman empire then integrating into the EU. and given how Russia influence and military might keeps slipping there isnt much need to stay in there. with that said I think Turkey will stay inside the tent till they are pushed out
Turkey might seem that way under Erdogan, but believe me, it just seems that way. Its founding principles dictate it to be part of the Western world order and while Erdogan is trying to diminish this, the Turkish psyche is much too connected to Europe. The Turkish people are probably the most liberal, democratic, secular, and independent-thinking people in the Islamic world. Erdogan will be gone tomorrow, but the large Turkish ship headed toward the West will continue its voyage, slowly but firmly. Believe me, I say this as a person who has lived in Turkey for decades now.
@@direnius no bro he is right wtf are u talking about as a Turkish Citizen i can clearly say we are not trying to be part of West or puppet of america or whatever else i dont want to be a european i dont want to be part of that is it wrong the thing like that i always see the things like we are helping then and they are helping us in military terms this is how it should be and how it should countiune we are on the central of the world ofc we will work with the world not only West this is so normal right ? Ofc we have diffrent interests then West but we can help eachother until the time come
Bro i just wrote a comment u might want to read that it can explain somethings about what we want in the relations between West and Turkey
Rebuilding "empires" is fraught with perils. Just look at Putin's attempt.
Turkey is not a founding member. Did you even read the Wikipedia article on NATO
Hay @TLDR News Flash : Turkey is NOT a Founding Member of NATO
The 12 founding members of the Alliance are: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States
so where in that list is Turkey ???
Turkey will be an important partner in the next coming decades, more so than Sweden or Finland. Though those two countries would make for better allies.
Turkey doesn’t need nato but I do believe NATO needs turkey
He's true Turkey joined to CSTO raged to off USA 😂
(3:34) -- Do pant cuffs have any revelatory significance? Does apparel color have any interpretable meaning?
Its always a question for me how primative turks are part of nato
In my estimation it is urgent Finland and Sweden come along as quickly as possible. It is dangerous to have them hanging out there.
I do not know all rules of the Nato agreement, but if a majority can suspend membership, they could suspend Turkey (and may be Hungary?), admit Finland and Sweden, and if Turkey wants to rejoin, they can apply for that - pending a majority will let them back in.
If we do that, we should count on all Nato facilities in Turket must clear out.
How is Sweden more important than Turkey to NATO? Turkey has been firmly anchored to the Western world order for almost a century now and while Erdogan has diminished this to some extent, Turkey is still located in one of the most important strategic parts of the world and has a massive and modern army. Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic states are peanuts when compared to Turkey when it comes to balancing Russia. Their impact is minuscule, while a change in Turkey's place in the world would have drastic aftershocks for centuries to come. Erdogan is here today, he will be gone tomorrow and Turkey will again firmly anchor herself to the Western world.
@@direnius ”.. Sweden more important than Turkey to NATO?..”
You understand I really want them all in Nato, but Sweden and Finland can be much easier conquered by Russia than Turkey. They are right next door, Finland is just 150 km from St. Petersburg. Then Russia would be controlling the Baltic sea, and we up North would all be threatened.
Its Turkey who is the stop block just now for admitting Sweden - and for what: Turkey can continue the dialogue with “fellow Nato member Sweden” afterwards. There is one nut case by the name of Rasmus Paludan, who is staging a show - and apparently Turkey wants to dignify this one fool with all the attention. I thought Islam was a great world religion, which can not be rocked by one non-muslim idiot. We have plenty of Turkish people here in northen Europe - some of them are down right criminals convicted of everything from murder to assault, burglary, fraud and theft - but we do not hold the entire country of Turkey collectively responsible for individual bad acts.
@@direnius Turkey is not part of the western world🤦🏼, never had and never Will. It is a shitty third world middle eastern arab desert country with values that date back 2000 years🤦🏼
So NATO should suspend one of their members to get a different member?
@@ammarahsan2157 1 for 2
Just 2 questions:
- isn’t 🇫🇮Finland joining too?
- isn’t 🇭🇺Hungary blocking too?
(Nice video tho!)
Apparently Hungary's just taking a while. I'm guess it's beurocracy.
@@scotandiamapping4549 It’s mostly Orban having close ties to both Erdogan and Putin.
@@secularsekai8910 Ah, thanks
Hungary is not blocking anymore they are onboard.
Sweden is the nation with nice tech evryone want .
Finland had mentioned that they would join only if Sweden also joins. Although Turkey has not blocked Finland, they have blocked Sweden, so Finland is simply blocked by proxy.
Who is funding or promised funding for the Kanal Istanbul expected to exceed the cost of $75 billion estimate? And what are their political affiliations?
Id like to see them try. Infact i want them too. Turkey is located in strategic location. It has 2nd largest army in NATO.
Greece blocked macedonia for 3 decades and nobody said a thing about it enough with the hypocracy already
Guess you haven't paid attention. Because unlike Turkey, Greece has ACTUAL concerns on the matter regardless how ridiculous they seem to your peabrain.
@@georgedevries3992 yeah ı know the greek situation BUT my point is if someone is supporting separatist in your country thats a REAL concern so turkey can block them ( ı want sweds in NATO thats good for allince) for önce put your anti turkish opinion aside and empatise with us please
@@leventkandemir1686 "empatise with us please" First, you or rather your "president" needs to have LEGITIMATE reasons to brand these people as terrorists. Just because they are merely a threat to his popularity and presidency and thus losing his political asylum, isn't a VALID reason to characterize them as terrorists.
"put your anti turkish opinion aside" You're not wrong that I am anti-Turkish but this is the least of my list with reasons (yes, plural). You Turks are some messed up people with or without Erdogan.
No way will they kick turkey out. Turkey has quite a good track record in air combat. They also do really good drones
Only now I realized those interviews are conducted in some sort of a bunker. Those aren't windows but photos and the whole internal design is IKEA 😁
It's called a 'set' in a 'studio', and the surroundings can be virtualized. You just need the armchairs in the middle of a space. TV has been doing this for AGES.
As a swede I don't think we should be pushing for NATO membership right now, we should at least wait until after the turkish election when there is less pressure on whoever is in charge to get a favorable deal. In the meantime we should just let Finland join and wait out the storm, there isn't any urgency towards us joining NATO we really aren't at risk of a russian attack.
It would be a dangerous precedence to kick a member out, but there also need to be a consequence for member nations that no longer qualify in regards to the values expected of a member candidate. Turkey is currently in breach with the democratic values that a qualifying member candidate would need to meet, thus it would be fair to introduce a rule that restrict their veto right accordingly.
How i like when it comes to democracy. When you breath and if its not benefits U.S you suddenly become undemocratic.
They can never kick someone out. It's just their fantasy for keyboard warriors.
Sweden may empose military sanctions to Turkiye, may supply arms to terrorist groups (PKK) that fight against Turkiye....And the blame goes to....Turkiye. P.S: Democratic values: important, however, no country was expelled from NATO when there was a military coup in that country. Maybe not the ideal democracy, but there is still is a democracy in Turkiye...
@@benkim1240 That's right. Sweden support terrorist group PKK and empose sanction to Turkiye because Sweden see Turkiye as an enemy state, that threatens Turkiye's national security for over 30 years. Now, we'll threat your national security by not letting you into NATO. Let's see how you like it. Payback is a bitch. Go tell PKK to protect you now 😂
@@ardaturkoglu11 they can kick any country at any time they please...if US say so, get that in your head😂
This is an interesting way of looking at it.
When you cant force them into doing what you want then you start talking about kicking them out.
I thought the whole idea was that we team up together not press existing members into isolation.
Just like Turkey was kicked out of F35 program because dear allies didn't sell them patriots for Turkeys air defence. So Turkey had to buy one from Russia. With USA there are no Allies just manipulation as long as you serve them. We see NATO to be the real Terrorist pack. Look at Iraqi invitation, Libya... Thanks to our Allies embargo Turkey became the leading defense technology in the region in last 20 years (last 5 years are the best) people has to be honest when you judge the others first to look at yourself.
It is, so we are they not teamimg up in sanctions on russia?
Why are they actively preventing, that would strengthen the whole over all?
If you don't work with the team and the teams then kicks you out, its your fault for isolating yourself and not them pressuring you into isolation.
@@doganorgun841 The Americans didnt want the F-35 under the watchful eye of the S-300 radar for to long.
@@Gnarlf Turkey does seem to have some valid problems with them.
Lets not forget that giving them access to NATO gives them article 5 guarantee, which means they will give all to support them
Turkey wasnt a founding member, but joined in 1952 along with Greece.
Yes please
Turkey is a key player in NATO . It would be a tragedy to lose our gateway to the Black Sea .
No it wouldn't...
Membership in this case is irrelevant. The US, the UK and other full NATO members would defend any attack on either Sweden or Finland as if they were a full member. They've already stated as much.
The problem is, they also said they'd protect Ukraine if Ukraine gave their nukes to Russia, and we've seen how that's gone. Yes, they're providing weapons (in dribs and drabs), but that's *very* different from coming to help in force, which is what 'protect' means
@@danielschneider9312 it was a memorandum (weak diplomatic statement) that didn't explicitly require boots on the ground.
@@danielschneider9312 But here's the thing, how the hell is Russia going to invade Sweden with Finland in the way?
@@olsenfernandes3634 Kaliningrad?
Why should Turkey support and fight for sweden when sweden tried to help pkk that has killed 40 tousend innocent citizens in turkey.
What NATO, the EU and the UN should do is get rid of the stupid system of unanimity, should be a majority system...
Peace. No to war.
Turkey is actually doing sweden a service.
In what way???
@@henrikl4244 Joining NATO is putting a target on sweden's back. It also undermine sweden international standing as a 'neutral' country. Nordic country was seen as this at least before as good mediators.
It enjoyed economic benefit of being 'neutral' like its weapons for example gripen. Now if Sweden join, they would be seen as another part of the western hegemony.
As someone from Sweden, I wanted Sweden to join NATO before the Ukraine war. But honestly, after all of this with Turkey, if there was a referendum whether to join or not its likely I would vote no. Having to lick the ass of more or less a dictator that wants my country to give its people less human rights and decrease free speech is just extremely unappealing.
I understand Erdogan have his own interests in it and this is a one time thing as all the other allies are on Sweden's side of thinking and reasoning so it wouldn't be a problem once inside. Yet it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth when the alliance is to defend "The free world" while still having to meddle and please dictators.
The problem you guys have is Russia though :( So you should most definently vote yes. And hopefully Erdogan loses in the next election.
It seems a dumb rule that it has to be unanimous which leads to this headache. There are 30 countries in NATO and this 1 country (3% of NATO) is dictating what happens.
It seems a lot of the world's problems are brought about by religion.
@@mrfoamerukHungary is also blocking Sweden.
You make some very interesting points. I was in the opposite camp. Up until the government applied for NATO membership, I was against it since I didn't see any reason for us to abandon our stance on neutrality that we've had for centuries... and of course, because I believed that it would "destabilize the region" as Magdalena Andersson said. But since one of Putin's war aims was to prevent more countries from joining the alliance, and since we've now attempted to do just that, I fear that if Russia ends up victorious, we are going to be next on his list. But still, I agree, I'm not too keen on having to compromise my integrity and Nordic values that I've grown up with in order to appease a country that most likely won't come to our aid once shit hits the fan.
Less human rights
The nordic are notorious for giving too much of these rights to the point their police being too scared to not arrest an immigrant who raped a woman becuase of fear being racist as an example or remind me about that guy that killed like somewhere close to 100 people and injured 300 from norway.
The freedom of speech is decreased only for certian people with certain ,,unpleasant" or inconvenient views and opinions
No suit?
Possibly, but it's stategically important to NATO so more than likely they won't, also Turkey needs NATO to counter Iran and Syria.
Turkey is a bad apple in Euro
Turkey is very important
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The most interesting things about this is that the two main antagonists , Turkey and Sweden, dont seems to have any problem with this. While everybody else is hyperventilating.
Why kick Turkey from NATO? Get your enemy closer.
If can boot, can’t all the other nato members just leave nato, effectively disbanding it and then replace it with nato 2.0 with updated charter with boot mechanism and few other clauses
That would take several years to complete, and within which time any member could be attacked by a foreign power and as they would not at the time be in the bloc anymore, they wouldn't be protected, which is the entire reason for NATO's existence, so while theoretically possible, not practical in slightest, especially for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with Russia looming on their doorstep and Putin seeming to want to restore the borders of the Soviet Union.
@@tonycutler3769 not really.
Nato1.0 can be maintained in mean time. Once all states have agreed of new treaty wording clauses etc, they can sign that into effect to create nato 2.0 and then leave the old one, or have the treaty cancel nato1.0 at say 12.00am and nato 2.0 take effect the next second or whatever
@@TheMelbournelad Then Turkiye will close the black sea, signs a military alliance with Russia and take all the nukes in NATO bases.
@@bigboyrambo2009 That would solve the issue with it giving NATO a reason to invade and take away the control of the strait while repossessing the nukes.
@@znail4675 Turkiye is no Iraq, that will be ww3.
Turkey's close cooperation with Russia should be reason enough to exclude them. They are a security risk within NATO.
but they are strategically important
@@H3rraM4juri Their strategic value has decreased after the fall of the Soviet Union. NATO now has access to Romania. Their fleet can carry the Romanian flag in the Black Sea. The US has a base on a Greek island in the mouth of the Bosphorus and can block all traffic if they want.
@@nilswedin8480 but still they are strategically important
@@H3rraM4juri Yes, it is an advantage to have them in NATO, but it must not come at the price of double-dealing with the enemy.
Cool do it so the russian can have full control over the black sea, gain mkre influence over the middle east yo help assad ever further and so on
Im from sweden and I hate the guy that made a Erdagon doll.
Okay I’ll comment on this as a Turk that lives in the US.
Kurdish- the reason why every political party in the Turkish parliament unites is literally whenever Kurdish insurgency happens and that would be a good example in the 1970s and 90s which word happening all over cross Kurdish Turkish areas, the reason why we support the opposing proxy war in Syria is literally because we fear the PKK and have a grudge towards them.
NATO?- literally no Turkish person would wanna leave NATO we despise Russia for a living. We would not want to side with them in a war plus we’re already in a proxy war in Libya and Syria against them. There is no way in heck with our strategic land, will leave NATO.
Election?- if everyone does lose sure our economy can get a break, but that doesn’t solve the polarization against urban versus rural civilizations. Another factor is the CHP which everyone thinks is going to be the savior of NATO isn’t very much bro NATO itself even though it’s a social liberal party they would still block Sweden to denounce Kurdish backed forces and still ask for the F-16 plus the fact the CHP is super pro deporting immigrants to Europe
I'll comment on your so called 'Turkish comment' as a Turk myself.
Turkey doesn't fear the PKK, Turkey views the PKK as a security threat just like how the European nations and Middle Eastern nations viewed ISIS as a security threat. That statement is just absurd and not true. The capabilities of PKK is limited to 5-6 people groups doing hit-run type of attacks, you think that is what Turkey fears? Anyways, moving onto the SDF part of the equation. The SDF is much more capable and potent when compared to the PKK, both in terms of their equipment and numbers. Not saying they would stand a chance against any NATO army let alone Turkey, but it is becoming much bigger of a threat by the day. The sooner you rip that band-aid, the better it is in this case.
Turkey did join the Syrian conflict by the U.S, there was no SDF back then. The U.S. just supported whoever it felt like supporting, whether it was the HTS, FSA, the Kurdish groups, or even ISIS at some point. But then the U.S. switched its focus back to the SDF, leaving Turkey with the only option of Islamists.
Many Turkish people despise NATO, including myself up to a certain point. It is no secret that we need NATO, and we do rely on NATO in terms of vehicles, equipment and such, but that is it. NATO was never there for our security, not when we were fighting ISIS, not when we were fighting Russian proxies (Wagnerites) in Libya/Syria, not when we were fighting a bloody fight inside our own borders (Hendek Ops)... The list goes on. If Turkey somehow manages to liberate itself from NATO in terms of being able to produce all the military vehicles, or at least the major parts of them, then there is literally no reason for Turkey to stay in NATO. Not saying Turkey should be closer with Russia, but just because you do not want to be close to Russia doesn't mean you should be in NATO.
CHP won't be the savior of shit. Bunch of dumbass old people and some wannabe boomers, that is what CHP is. The reason they are so popular is due to the brand value they have, literally nobody gives a fuck about Kılıcdaroglu or anyone in CHP except maybe Imamoglu, Yavas, and Ozcan. Ince is the strongest player against Erdogan, and has actually came close to beating Erdogan. Unlike CHP, his party knows what to talk about, when to talk about them, they actually have an approach when it comes to things. CHP has a leader who couldn't even call the SDF a terrorist organization, that is how clueless they are, that is how lost they are. We need a shepherd, not a sheep. We got plenty of sheeps anyways.
Sweden looking at NATO members voting to approve its accession / Mark Corrigan raging at Jez over Christmas dinner: "What?? NO TURKEY?"
NATO should incorporate a "subset-NATO" status in which Sweden and Finland would have shared protection with all NATO members that wish to align with a candidate "subset-NATO" country. This would allow Turkey to not have any obligations to protect (or to be protected by) a "subset-NATO" country while allowing other NATO countries to make their individual commitments. Turkey would then realize the futility in blocking their acceptance. This could also be helpful when addressing future NATO candidates.
If you put English subtitles on the videos, we will automatically translate the English subtitles into our language so that we can understand what you are saying.
Çok detaylı bir video olmamış zaten pek çok önemli detay eksik
Maybe try another earthquake device. - Invention created by Nikola Tesla on accident
Imagine kicking Turkey for Sweden 🤣
They should and this is coming from an American
@@anonymousanonymous6045 why would we kick probably the important NATO member for useless Sweden? This is why you don’t have the authority to make any decisions
Just wait for elections. Turkish people are not happy with Erdogan either. There is no point to burn the bridges. As for the sanctions, Turkish economy cannot handle the consequences, which is again the failure of the current government. Everyone in Turkey knows Russia is a rival and while some people have resentments towards EU nobody considers them as a threat or enemy.
Also you should keep in mind that the location of the country is a leverage and a burden at the same time. Just check the map and see turkey’s neighboring countries. It was a great blow to turkey when US decided to ignore a NATO member and sided with the factions considered terrorist organizations. Of course they didn’t fool anybody by calling PKK as Ypg which is potato/patato for Turkish republic.
This places are our backyard and if NATO wants cooperation it should accept that fact and act accordingly.
@RS Casual, Elections will probably change a lot of things in that country but one thing that won't change is their policy on Sweden.
It isn't a party issue, everyone is on board with the policy. In fact the opposition has been slamming Erdogan for being too soft on Sweden.
So this "oh lets wait for elections to fix this Sweden problem" is a pipe dream. People don't understand how much bad blood there is between the two states. If you look into the issues between them it's also very understandable why the Turks are so hot skipping mad.
When the CHP (the party founded by Atatürk) comes to power, Turkey will prioritize its interests in foreign policy. For example, if Sweden continues to support the PKK, relations between the two countries will come to a breaking point. For example, in 1995 we were going to war with Greece because of a small island, Erdogan is very soft and can easily make concessions in foreign policy.
@@_Redronin_ Sweden doesn't support the PKK. If Turkey thought about war in 1995 it shows a lack of self-restraint, any dispute must be referred to the UN. The CHP would calm things down, the main thing causing problems is the Blue Homeland, which the CHP is against.
@kızgın tosbağa Diğer partilerde farklı değil , kimisi Arap sevici , kimisi ateist. Mhp desen ekseninden şaşmış. Aleviler en azından öz be öz Türk şu andaki Akp iktidarına tercih ederim. Bu ülkede kime Alevilerden zarar gelmiş ki , hep zararı gören onlar olmuş ama ona rağmen bir kere isyan etmemişler devlete.
@kızgın tosbağa The Swedish government doesn't support the PKK and officially calls them terrorists. Because some Swedes support the PKK it doesn't mean Sweden supports terrorism, just as a fee Turkish people supporting ISIS doesn't make Turkey a terrorist state.
You forgot to mention probably the most significant deciding factor of all for Turkey to leave NATO: that is, if Russia ultimately ends up winning the war in Ukraine. Because then that would show who's ultimately weaker on the battlefront (certainly not Russia in this case). And so it would likely mean that Turkey would feel the need to establish closer ties with Russia (and possibly China as well) instead.
winning team joiner?🤣
@@marcux83 Yeah I actually think so. 😏
even russia wins, whole world knows that Russia is not as strong as it looks at this point
We should yes.
I mean not thinking they’d get support from Nato in the event of a war doesn’t translate as a reason to leave, cuz leaving will GUARANTEE not getting support. Now there’s at least some hope 😄
Nationalism is so interesting.
Stage 1-Often it's used to rise to power' it stokes the deepest darkness of human nature to blame someone else for your problems and mistakes. Once people get power they soon realize that Nationalism cuts both ways especially if someone moves further to the right.
Stage 2-It becomes a struggle to stay in power if you move off your previous stances someone else fills that void. Every policy becomes about protecting your power at the cost of your people.
Stage-3 When things break down you go back to Nationalism often with disastrous results.
Turkey is in stage 3
Russia is in stage 3
China is the middle of stage 2, which will be 3 when they invade Taiwan.
Thanks for the episode. That MSC set looks so fake, concrete wallpaper and windows.
No Turkey has been a loyal NATO member who has negotiate grain and POW exchanges - if it has concerns about what it percieves as terrorists then they should be resolved - Sweeden needs to understand that
As a Norwegian turkey is more important then sweden, both strategically and militarily
But who would you rather lay your life down for
@@KaiserHanstedt if you don't have militarily strategic piece, it's going to be a lot more difficult to fight for those you care about
Well - Finland could become a logistical nightmare if sweden doesnt join or is outright attacked.
but in practice... Turkey is going to have to calibrate is possition since the quakes.
@@Paerigos I don't even understand how a natural disaster and a huge loss of human life should be used as a position to exert pressure on said country.
what a way to talk about a member of an alliance.
"Sorry, your people's lives don't mean much to us"
Turkey helped in the Balkans, Turkey helped in Korea The Turkish NATO membership is steep with BLOOD and lives.
This should give a quick scan of Turkish involvement in NATO aswell...
After Erdogan leaves, things should just smooth even.
Meanwhile, Greece supports Serbia and doesn't recognize Kosovo. Sweden didn't send men to Korea, but Turkey sent 15,000 men and sacrificed around 900 lives (KIA+MIA).
@@realtalk6195 exactly.
Why can one guy block the entry of 2 countries that could mount even more pressure on Russia shouldn't it be a majority vote from existing members of NATO.
I don’t know why but the pronunciation of “secretary” as “secutary” is really grating.
Nott as bad as the American pronunciation of "leverage".
Eurduan (probably spelled wrong) is coming up on an election. He needs to present himself as strong to draw attention away from the economy. Everyone sees they are stronger together.
It's Erdogan, and yes, it's a weird pronunciation. And I don't get why people don't adapt it in some cases to a way that can be natively spoken, here in Brazil we do that all the time.
because people should be smart enough to learn how to pronounce the ğ in Turkish. It's really not hard, it just elongates the preceding vowel. So it's Erdo-an, dead simple
@@seadkolasinac7220Basically just delete the g
Yeah basically delete it whenever you see it. People are right to get confused by it because it is a notation rather than a letter but it is in the alphabet for some fricking reason. It is awkward since you can't read it by itself soft-g has no sound attached to it you literally read it as soft-g while going over alphabet
It's Erdoğan, pronunced as "Erdoh-ahn"