They'd definitely be kicked out at this point if push came to shove. No doubt about that. There's no value in a member who doesn't cooperate. Both Finland and Sweden are very much aligned with the rest of NATO and if member states object to them joining you basically set the precedent that one member state (that's not the US/UK) can hold the group hostage. There's no way that would be tolerated, regardless of the strategic importance of Turkey.
To your point, they won't say no anyway. All the speculation is, I think, just circus.
Perhaps it's more important to have Turkey in NATO than Sweden and Finland, but I honestly don't know. I hear Finland has a strong army and it's useful to have all of the Baltic Sea countries in NATO.
My impression is that Turkey does not believe the rest of NATO takes the threat to it from some Kurdish organizations seriously. I have no access to unbiased data to say whether there is any actual significant threat to Turkey's security from Kurdish groups in Sweden, but it does appear that Turkey actually believes this to be a problem.
The main risk here is that, now that Finland is a member of NATO, it is not clear that Sweden will feel itself needing to make any concessions to Turkey, but Turkey may still want to demand them. I would rather that Sweden be formally in NATO. Given that the four biggest Scandinavian nations have agreed to practically merge their air forces, whether or not Sweden is an actual member may not matter too much, though.
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.
Exactly. Turkey's objection doesn't really have much to do with Sweden and Finland, it's more an opportunity for Turkey to get concessions from other NATO members on an issue on which Turkey disagrees with the rest of NATO: the Kurds.
Nah, and also Turkey (similar to when people argued that Hungary or Croatia would object) would be kicked out of NATO before Sweden and Finland would be prevented from joining.
"But how would they do that? There's no process.. etc."
They can just take a vote and then that's that. Likely Turkey will get some appeasement concessions, but there's no serious risk here.
I would like to add, Turkeys concerns about the NATO entry of Sweden were not without cause: Sweden has introduced an arms embargo against Turkey, prohibiting arms exports to Turkey. NATO is a military alliance and in case one member gets attacked, others have to support this member. However, one cannot really be sure if that will happen when one country has been initiating arms embargos against another member.
This time it was Finland that pushing them both to NATO. Finland had friendly pack with Sweden that if either of them decide to pursue NATO membership they would let the other one know.
Last year by the time Finnish leadership and people were pretty much decided on NATO, Sweden was just starting their discourse so they had to catch up not be left behind. Now somewhat ironically because of Sweden, Turkey has been delaying and objecting the membership.
Finland has also kept with updating equipment and keeping the conscription military service these past 100 years, Sweden ended their conscription and mostly been downsizing their military.
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.)
Turkey has the second largest standing military force in NATO. They are also, well, in NATO. The current situation is uncomfortable for a whole lot of people, but when push comes to shove, I don't see how a proxy force with questionable allegiance stands up to a NATO country with a massive air and ground force.
It might be quicker to just invite all non-Turkey NATO members to join a new treaty, and then plan to secede from NATO some time in the next 10-20 years (so that Putin can't claim to have ended NATO).
The new body could even be called the Not Accepting Turkey Organization just to make it clear which country is the problem. However, if Turkey relents and allows Sweden and Finland to join (original) NATO, then the replica NATO can disband instead.
But with zero reasonable arguments for blocking the membership, Turkeys position doesn't seem to be sustainable.
reply