Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I have a different perspective. If NATO hadn't expanded to Turkey, Sweden and Finland would have had a much easier time not being blackmailed. NATO expanding to essentially-dictatorship countries was too eager.

And yes, I understand Turkey's geographical position giving it power over sea routes, and why that was desirable to NATO. But choosing to include a fickle ruler in a unanimous-decisions-only organization is just asking for trouble.

(The Baltics wanted in on NATO, and it's good that they got in. They're largely decently run small countries in a tough spot, not world stage bullies.)



view as:

To be clear, Turkey has been undergoing pretty decisive democratic backsliding since the mid 2000s. It was added to NATO at the same time as Greece, and at that time, Turkey was the more democratic of the two countries (see, e.g., the electoral democracy index for 1952 on https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ ).

edit: note if you're trying to find Turkey by searching on that site, it uses the endonym Türkiye


Türkiye is probably the first western country to not secure its demographic dividends, with maybe Greece (hard to say because the EU mess things up with free movement of people and stuff). It did not fail hopefully, but the infrastructure gains are small compared to even ex-USSR countries. I fear the same is happening in slow motion in India (we'll see in 15 years i guess).

In 1951, when Turkey joined NATO, the country was not actually all that dictator-like.

Turkey brings more value to NATO then Sweden and Finland combined. It has a standing army (2nd biggest after US in NATO) with combat experience, defense sector with proven capabilities. Not to mention 11th economy in the world by GDP PPP and growing.

It's better for Turkey and NATO, that Turkey is in NATO. I would say it's far more important than Sweden or Finland being in NATO.


Legal | privacy