SWEDEN-FINLAND | Neutrality versus NATO?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

The decision by Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO is a landmark moment for the two countries and for the alliance. But will they actually join? Turkey has said that it will block their accession. But will Ankara really go as far as to disrupt when could be a hugely symbolic development for European security? Or is this just the Turkish president trying to exact concessions from his Western partners? Thought and comments below.

[@berkosmansatiroglu]

i dont know sweden but Fins is ok. That situation wont continue forever sir.

[@HAL_9001]

This explains the sudden spike in "how to remove NATO member" google searches.

[@paulstephen3257]

At this point, I think it's fair to say that turkey isn't really a "Nato" ally. It actively undermines nato interests in Syria with the kurds and is belligerent to nato and E.U countries like greece and cyprus. It is continuously courting Russia and using the threat of getting closer to Russia to extract concession. In all honesty, it is probably kept in Nato just so that Nato has control over the Bhosphorus and Dardanelles(and also has bases near the middle east).The west has proven very weak when it comes to standing up to erdogan. This has only emboldened him and has now come back to haunt Nato in this case. I think Erdogan is doing this to strengthen his relationship with Russia. It is also very stupid that a single member of nato can override the wishes of all other member states in this case. I think they need to change the arrangement for admitting member states(maybe by a 2/3 or more margin for admission).

[@zagreus1249]

Hmmmm, I don’t believe Turkey to go that far but they might try to get some Concessions out of this.

[@paulstephen3257]

@@zagreus1249 Nah, it looks like Erdogan just rejected the delegations of Sweden and Finland and gave a definite no. I think he is doing this to placate the Russians who were probably mad about turkey selling dronesto ukraine

[@ElijsDima]

Not sure if Turkey will step down from their protests. Right now sounds like they want a swedish parliament member extradited. Which, you know, seems like a big ask.

[@mirandapillsbury7885]

yeah that is ridiculous. That said I do agree with them that it is shameful that Sweden and Finland harbor and support the PKK. They are terrorists point blank period. But Turkey's asks are rather ridiculous at this point. I think they should be satisfied with a written / formal guarantee that Sweden and Finland will never harbor new PKK members or supporters. Something like that...

[@Clifford_Banes]

Turkey's inflation reached 70% and Erdogan is losing popular support. Publicly, he will receive some political declarations in support of his claims, while in the background, he will receive some financial help / removal of some sanctions to help keep Turkey's economy afloat. He could be allowed some sort of dominion/oversight over Crimea, too.

[@FOLIPE]

@@Clifford_Banes I agree that basically this will end with turkey gaining economical and political concession, but I don't think that this will be done in secret. Turkey will probably publicize any concession it gets

[@walrus1074]

@@Clifford_Banes There are also rumors going around that they are asking for the US to give them F-16 Falcon fighter jets as well.

[@mirandapillsbury7885]

@@Clifford_Banes No way Russia will ever grant Turkey ANY dominion or influence over Crimea. Crimea is simply too geostrategically important for Russia to allow that. Especially since Russia has 100% consolidated its grip over that region. There's simply no benefit to doing that. And the other regions of Ukraine are too irrelevant for Turkey. There's nothing to gain for Turkey in that theater. Russia is taking all the wins there.

[@nian60]

The Swedish prime minister stated a few weeks ago that Sweden is raising the military spending to 2%. I'm guessing this is already happening.

[@permarkusrisman6471]

No it’s not. The timetable for that is reaching it about 2027-2030. The Armed forces has made projections when they can come up in those level of spendings and are planning for what more the defence can use the increased budget to. However, previous decision about increased spending are taking effect now with new regiments opening, more conscripts and new equipment.

[@tylernaturalist6437]

Thank you for all your fantastic content! I just found your channel this week and it has been wonderful to learn from you, it’s rare to see such an unbiased and neutral perspective on divisive international issues.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. :-) And a very warm welcome to the channel!

[@sandymilne224]

James, don’t change anything. I’m really enjoying your historical videos, learning a lot. Succinct, perfect length videos with no nonsense information.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much Sandy. I really appreciate it. I’ll do my best to keep to it. :-)

[@Todd.B]

Turey confuses me, for example, they supply Ukraine with drones but at the same time, they provide Russia with safe haven for all of their superyachts. I'd like to see a video about the USSR's application to join NATO in 1954.

[@vangelisskia214]

Turkey has always been the "crafty neutral", playing both sides. You should read about Turkey's role in the second world war.

[@jonasmelander]

Turkey sells these drones to Ukraine. They are not like other countries that give Ukraine weapons.

[@Kilrly]

@@jonasmelander Exactly. They are providing next to nothing in aid. The drones they provide were SOLD to them before the war and during. They are trying to make money because their currency is worthless.

[@base3626]

Politics are not meant to take sides. It's just finding the balances. European countries are still buying gas from Russia today. Which is fine. If you take sides and be friendly towards one side and be completely hostile to another you'd end it up in another world war. It's just political leaders and governments tell lies to their citizen that they take side. As a citizen one should always follow to find logical outcomes. Taking side leads you nowhere. So in these present conditions people think wisely rather than banging war drums. Thats the fact for Russia and Nato countries. Because we all know if the WW3 happens it will take only an hour. And that would be the end the world as we know.

[@cuteerebos2155]

Turkey is about as dependent on Russia as Germany is, while at the same time wanting Russian influence to be as small as possible outside of russia, to keep themselves safe from possible agressions. So you'll see Turkey being pretty confusing as far as foreign Russian-policy is concerned.

[@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156]

Great video Professor. The current events are frightening but fascinating. It's reassuring to have things explained. Thank you! Also, I just realized that we barely ever hear about the micro-nations of Europe, like San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, etc. Maybe you could make a video about the politics of those small countries?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks Hugo! Great point. I really should take a look at them. Their relationship to NATO and the EU isn't always clearly understood.

[@zix_zix_zix]

Great idea! Definitely a topic to consider!

[@Cptnbond]

This was a very timely and insightful summary. However, it would be beneficial if you could analyze the Kurdish groups - in Turkey and Syria with various three-letter acronyms. Erdogan calls most of them for PKK spinoffs to be able to mark all as terrorist organizations. What role do they play, and are they all a threat?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I really wanted to the focus to be on Sweden and Finland and the expansion of NATO. But I do certainly want to come back to the Kurdish issue in another video. It is a very significant topic in its own right.

[@koseku3]

It is known that sweden is feeding PKK terrorists for a while. Turkey is left alone in Syria and we do not act them like allies anymore.

[@zccau2316]

This video is extremely biased. Turkey has every right to reject countries that ally against them and support terrorists. Remember it is Turkey who has done the most against the Russians via Libya and Syria and had no support from the west. The chance of a united Europe not happening will be because of Sweden and Finland, not Turkey.

[@rejvaik00]

Sorta.... Currently only Turkey and Qatar calls the YPG a terror group Not even the US does that

[@koseku3]

@@rejvaik00 different names, same shit

[@jamie7026]

Thank you for your analysis of the situation in these troubled times, it's nice to hear a balanced view

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed! It will be very interesting to see how this develops.

[@fb150185]

I'm very interested in understanding better multilateral organisations (such as NATO or the EU) that don't seem to have processed for expelling or reprimand members.

[@MC-yt1uv]

In Nato's case if I had to guess a significant part of it emphasizes the organization's commitment to defending its members. If countries could be easily removed it would weaken the appeal of joining the organization. So for instance, if Estonia was about to be invaded by Russia, Nato kicks Estonia out so they don't have to go to war. By not having an expulsion process countries don't have to worry about it happening.

[@vinniechan]

The EU needs unanimous vote for major decisions so as long as you have one friend it's hard to get booted but there are mechanism in place to withhold funding as form of sanctions Not sure about NATO

[@robinwilson2238]

To understand NATO one must go directly to NATO website. All of your questions will be answered. There is a wealth of knowledge on their website. What this guy is doing is repeating whats on NATO website.

[@zix_zix_zix]

The EU's operating and regulatory framework is much more advanced and intricate than NATO's. NATO is just a defense alliance, while the EU is a distinct political entity with comprehensive policymaking powers. European legislation covers virtually all areas of public policy, including market regulation, the environment, social policy, international trade, defense, human rights, justice, immigration and law and order. You can't really compare the two.

[@slimjimvortivask7350]

Thank you for more amazing coverage Mr Ker Lindsay

[@powasjington4262]

This could pay off but it could also backfire, Erdogan is really taking a big risk and stirring the pot here. I guess if you’re a country like Turkey this is what you do.

[@thranduil9761]

Did we watch the same video? Because in the video I watched, he also stated that Greece delayed Macedonia's NATO initiative for 10 years. And for just one name.

[@jackholler3572]

You should have understand the problem instead of interpreting it as a blackmail... what a childish act... you cant just demand all the things and complain when others want to speak up.

[@thranduil9761]

@@jackholler3572 What else would you expect from a citizen of a country like Turkey, right? The meaning of your sentence is very clear. You are not aware of the seriousness of the situation. If you perceive this as a simple blackmail, you are very wrong. The PKK is an organization founded by the Kurds and recognized as a terrorist organization by the USA, especially by European countries. Like all Turks, Kurds are currently serving in our army. This means that Kurdish soldiers and Kurdish civilians were also martyred in PKK attacks. When there are dead people in my country, there are laments in Turkish as well as laments in Kurdish. Turks do not have enmity towards Kurds, but Turks do have enemies such as PKK and YPG. Everyone in this organization, whether Kurdish, Turkish or German, is the enemy of Turkish soldiers. Turkey supported the government supported by the UN government in Libya. Again, a Russian warplane was shot down because it crossed the Turkish borders. Turkey had to host millions of refugees due to the events in Syria. Millions of refugees have been entering Turkey since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. At what point did NATO sided with Turkey? America even created a terror state in Syria. Turn it on and watch, you will see PKK flags at all YPG rallies. You see pictures of PKK founder Apdullah Öcalan in all YPG organizations. We are aware of how close these two institutions are to each other. Because we still have soldiers shot. You are providing weapons aid to the enemies of a NATO country. According to international agreements, the islands to the west of Turkey would not be armed. We see that Greece is arming those islands. The Greek authorities do not deny this anyway. NATO did not make a sound on this issue either. In fact, the United States openly signed an external agreement with Greece. Again, France made agreements with Greece. America has taken a clear stance in Turkish-Greek relations, which it has been at an equal distance from for years, and sided with Greece. Turkey took part in Syria against the Russians. Russia killed 33 of our soldiers. We again took a position against the Russians in Libya. The Russians had the Wagner team. Our position in Armenia was again against the Russians. Again, Turkey took responsibility by giving Bayraktar to Ukraine and providing humanitarian aid. What other NATO state has done so much work? Despite all this, Turkey was isolated.

[@jackholler3572]

@@thranduil9761 I am on your side read the comment again

[@thranduil9761]

@@jackholler3572 I might have misunderstood. I see a lot of ridiculous comments about this and I usually read critical comments. Sorry.

[@lipa1356]

Your videos are great. One gets all the information on said topic and its beautifuly explained and narrated

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! That is really kind of you to say. And truly appreciated. :-) Have a great weekend!

[@lipa1356]

@@JamesKerLindsay your very much welcome sir. I wish you all the best for your channel. ✊️✊️✊️

[@paulian1888]

Turkey: We do a little trolling

[@berkosmansatiroglu]

No sir. He is serious.

[@jonasmelander]

They just want money or new weapons.

[@hkchan1339]

More like a tumour

[@SimonNZ6969]

Turkey is definitely looking very sus right now. I hope they do bend after some talks. But considering how they've gone basically full authoritarian. It won't surprise if Turkey thinks it's got more common with Russia than the West. It'd be a tragic loss.

[@eduardochavezbarreto8140]

Why sus? Kurds are a sensitive topic for Turks, like te prorussians for Ukr. Also, if the incorporation of of the Nordics sets up a conflict, Turkey is one of the NATO countries that will be more engaged.

[@djangomango9555]

So you think Turkey Fight for European Union ?? Why?? Turkey ist Not in eu,and sweden,Finnland are Not in Nato!! You Unserstand what i mean!! The Türkis rule this areas more than 1000 years we know how Diplomatic works!!

[@zix_zix_zix]

You can bet that Finland and Sweden will be 100% engaged against Russia in case of conflict, while Turkey would be 100% neutral.

[@DavidMFChapman]

Thanks again for the clear explanation of the situation.

[@muhammetikbaltutal8519]

Turkey want to use like an advantage this situation. Weapon ambargos from the NATO allies, removing from F-35 program, CAATSA sanctions this are should fix between Ankara and NATO (firstly USA). Also Turkey wanted 40 F-16 aircrafts from US. Turkey will use this as a bargaining opportunity. In the video we saw Prof.'s defence expenditure graphic Greece have most percantage per GDP. Everyone knows that is againts Turks. Greece military ammunition stack is rose up in couple of years. That is another issue and we can count a lots more

[@walrus1074]

I don't think bringing Turkey back into the F-35 program is realistic at this point since they are building their own indigenous 5th gen jet but those F-16's sure look nice for Turkey right now.

[@karlcx]

i doubt there is much appetite in europe for rewarding turkey's obstinance. it would be strange to stand up for ukrainian freedom, and ignore the plight of the kurds (or the armenians for that matter). sweden understands this. all turkey have done is demonstrate they are a liability when it comes to liberty, and have no place in europe or NATO.

[@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022]

@@walrus1074 Turkey is just too fucking sus for the F-35, it's the fighter most of the Western world is relying on for at least the next 20 years and you don't want a country with authoritarian tendencies, defence ties with Russia to have their hands on that.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

The Greek spending is by percentage on GDP the Turkish spending is higher in total numbers since the the Turkish GDP is higher Also Turkey got the f-16 program Ps when you have a neighbouring country's politicians talking about throwing people into sea and how cool things was under ottoman rule It isn't wise to ignore the threats and not build up your defences Even if it is only for the domestic audience of voters is better to be wrong than sorry

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

Also note that the Turkish administration isn't really pushing for weapon systems anymore since the domestic production is good enough but instead they are talking about corend administration's political opponents basically people seeking political asylum being sent back to Turkey

[@SAlam-bo3ww]

Fantastic video! Love your channel from the US

[@metusalemuustalo]

Thanks professor, great lecture.

[@Hashkovo]

Fantastic video as usual.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. There was quite a lot to try to cover.

[@charleskristiansson1296]

I would love to see a full and transparent video about the huge financial gain from armaments. War is linked to monetary gain.

[@majormoolah5056]

Thank you for the insight. I am Finnish myself and its most interesting to see how foreign experts see our current situation. As for Erdogan... I am assuming he is still a rational actor. This means Turkey would not gain anything by blocking Finland and Sweden completely from NATO. But they have things to gain with political theatre. Erdogan has tremendous domestic difficulties and this gives him a chance to posture and look important. It is Boris Johnson from a different angle. Turkey has been meddling with regional conflicts for a while now and has indeed bumped heads with Russia. I very much doubt he would want to somehow use this situation to mend fences with Putin, especially considering the weakness in Putin's position. So to summarise: Erdogan has laid out the maximalist negotiating position which will indeed be negotiated down until both parties can agree. On the long term, it will certainly make Turkey look even more unreliable than before.

[@steppenwolf5956]

Believe me or not in TR nonone cares about NATO as they know NATO will never support TR in case of any conflict. NATO has been showing that in case of the Russian fighter jet that was shot by the Turkish air force. No turkish soldier will accept to die for Finland and Sweden supportingterrorist groups fighting against TR

[@majormoolah5056]

@@steppenwolf5956 If that is how they feel, then Turkey leaving Nato sounds like the proper course.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

I argue this entire situation was something Erdogan prayed for since he isn't doing so hot at the moment, where he has the upper hand. He will try to squeeze as much benefit as he can get out of this. And at the same time this is Finland and Sweden's nightmare. They can no longer be neutral in the face of declining security concerns in Europe, the entire thing is slipping out of their hands...

[@rogerdarthwell5393]

Thank you very much for your new video

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much Roger. I hope all is well with you. Have a great weekend.

[@rogerdarthwell5393]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you Sir! Yes I am well, hope you are having a great weekend as well!

[@AngryR4v3n]

Professor, while I liked the video I think it falls short on this subject in particular. Don't get me wrong I like your channel, while the historical context was greatly appreciated I think when you started talking about the current context it fell flat. For example, while Turkey's possible veto is controversial, they feel entitled because of the Sweden's and Finland's support to Kurdish militias/political movements that according to Turkis, affects their security. I think it would have been better if you explored why these countries supported such movements in the first place, and how could they negotiate with Turkey to enter the alliance. Please take this as constructive criticism, thank you still for covering this subject 😀

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. It is a short video. A lot had to be missed out. But my main interest was about Sweden and Finland and and the traditional positions. I’ve done a lot on Turkey, and I will come back to it. But this video was really about the background to NATO and the Nordic countries.

[@AngryR4v3n]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you for your reply I appreciate it. Talking in depth about Nordic/Turkish relations is something really important due to today's context. Have a great weekend professor, can't wait for your next video.

[@FOLIPE]

I'm not even turk but the amount of comments with a us vs them mentality towards Turkey is really incredible. A complete and utter disregard for Turkey's concerns and interests, and an automatic preference towards the new possible members that seems borderline prejudicial

[@nian60]

Democratic countries tend to band together against undemocratic countries.

[@gyderian9435]

They are trying to get USA to give them figher jets for approving Finland and Sweden, which really does seem pretty unethical. Like think about it for a second

[@zix_zix_zix]

Maybe because the entire NATO wishes to accept Finland and Sweden as members, while Turkey refuses citing the usual PKK narrative?

[@attilaturksoy1510]

Thank you professor for great insight, I quite enjoy your content. as a geopolitics enthusiast I Believe most of political decision making is based on real-politik and realties of the situation not the general feeling, having said that and knowing the current tense situation surrounding Russian invasion of Ukraine and the general atmosphere of mixed feelings stemming from that, my question is do you believe "feelings" will trump logic in West's thinking when you say "most NATO members would readily trade Finland and Sweden for Turkey"?

[@lunino4374]

imo i don't think feelings are necessarily the main motivator. true, turkey is a strategically important partner, but it hasn't been a partner in a true sense for years. turkish incursions on rojava contradict american policy, plus america and turkey have had a fractured relationship under erdogan especially with all of the controversy around alleged US involvement in the coup attempt. the relationship between erdogan's turkey and the west has been outright adversarial, NATO might see turkish ambitions under erdogan as fundamentally irreconcilable with the rest of the alliance, and plus incorporating sweden and finland into NATO has been a long term strategic goal for decades. i personally don't think it's a good trade but it doesn't look like there will be anyone else in power in turkey for the forseeable future, and therefore there is unlikely to be a change in direction in turkish foreign policy,.

[@attilaturksoy1510]

​@@lunino4374 I'm sure that's the general sentiment among Westerners and if looked at from Turkish point of view there will definitely be counter points to every argument which will be the right approach from Turkish point of view. but that's not what I meant, like the saying the more things change the more they stay the same in the case of Turkey and NATO when Turkey joined the alliance back in the 50's the main reason was the threat of Soviet Union's itself to Turkey and her expansion threatening NATO. 30 years after the collapse of SU today the main threat to Europe once again is Russia. with the bonus point that today Russia isn't even the biggest opponent and headache of West: China is a far greater and capable opponent than SU ever was. with that prelude let's get to the main point: Finland and Sweden are countries that need protection against Russia, correct. and they carry some strategic weight with strengthening the Alliance in Baltic sea, lifting some pressure off Suwalki Gap and increasing the pressure on Russia forcing her to stretch her forces more thinly. and Finland and Sweden will probably eventually get the approve from Turkey and join NATO (Turkish policy has always been supportive of NATO expansion and Turkey will probably get most of it's demands met regarding Sweden and Finland's ceasing of support for terrorist). and even if they don't join NATO they will always be in the Western camp and probably will never be a threat to NATO, Europe or West. Turkey on the other hand is not in the same position, without much going into the strategic weight she carries it's safe to say it's the South-Western pillar of NATO. what the professor suggested is most NATO members would trade Finland and Sweden with Turkey. now a Turkey that is not in the western orbit and is considered a foe will absolutely act as a foe and you can be sure she'll have the full support of anti-west forces to do so. west is afraid of a nuclear capable Iran how do you think they'll "FELL" about a hostile Nuclear capable Turkey right on their doorstep, right when they are in active confrontation with Russia and a potential confrontation with China. is it logical to open a third front against yourself in your doorstep?! in conclusion the statement "most NATO members readily trading Finland and Sweden for Turkey" is a statement based on feelings more than facts. the general sentiment among some Europeans is sensitive now due to the war but that's not really that relevant in decision making and for policy makers. wouldn't you say? (or maybe we in Turkey have become insensitive to war and hardship after living in a region with constant instability and to concept of "feeling" in political decision making after our "ally" choose a terrorist group that is hell bent on destroying us over us, I don't know.)

[@djangomango9555]

@@lunino4374 so you think Europe ist a truh friend and Partner of Turkey???

[@jackholler3572]

@@lunino4374 How come ? When europe was just speaking Turkey was against the russians in Ukraine , syria, caucasus and libya. Not to mention Turkey hosts millions of refugees for europe which is illegal actually. Now you say Turkey is not acting like a partner. Do you know if Turkey releases the refugees it may just collaps EU. Just stop being so ignorant and try to understand Turkey.

[@pallethecop]

Finland has 19,000 Active, wartime strenght 230,000 (including 19k active, 3k borderguards and rest is newst baches of conscripts), reserve pool 900,000

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. The figures were from the Military Balance by the IISS. Thus is the most authoritative open source of information on defence capabilities. And, as others have said, the 900,000 is just the pool of all possible people who could be mobilised in a conflict. It doesn’t mean much in real terms. It’s the trained and available reservists that matters. (Just consider Sweden. It has twice Finland’s population, but one twentieth the number of reservists. Which is the figure that really matters when assessing its real military strength?)

[@pallethecop]

@@JamesKerLindsay Yes but the difference is that Finland has conscription and Sweden not. Every male has to go through military training 6-12months plus training-camps to hold you updated. You stay in the reservist pool until you turn 50, and for officers 60. Puls females that voulenteer. Other words Finland has 900k citizens that have gone through 6-12months training atleast. Citizenpool available is 1.2milj men and 1.1milj women.

[@joqqeman]

@@pallethecop that may technically be true, but what do you imagine the readiness levels are for large proportions of 35+ men who did 6 month service long time back..

[@pallethecop]

@@joqqeman In case of a war, when they start mobilizing troops, it's the most recent conscripts who gets called and the rest will go through military training to get up-to-date, just like how they started training males in Ukraine. I would bet the one who had 6months training 30years ago will still catch up much faster.

[@joqqeman]

@@pallethecop yes, if they kept good care of themselves. However, the point is that many of those 900k are no longer in any condition to do any active service. We are, after all, talking about middle aged finnish men...

[@karlcx]

excellent summary as always. thank you.

[@DillyVesper]

Finland has Active personnel 280,000 in wartime and 900.000 in reserve. Expenditures: Percent of GDP 1.96 (2021). Now it is over 2%.

[@TheLocalLt]

Thank you for the video professor! Although even preceding this NATO issue Turkey has bought weapons from Russia, Turkey has also helped to arm Ukraine, plus has challenged Russia in the Caucasus, so they aren’t going totally rogue here. My opinion is that they are they are just somewhat greedily looking for concessions at a moment of crisis. Since their demands are pretty extreme it would seem they hope to meet in the middle and still get concessions. Will that work? Who knows, perhaps America intervenes in some way. It’ll be interesting to see, thanks as always for the video!

[@lvoldum]

Thanks! 👍

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Pleasure! :-) I hope all is well with you.

[@lvoldum]

@@JamesKerLindsay It is, thank you - you too?

[@ginojaco]

Erdogan doesn't seem to act rationally, even from a 'Turkey First' AKP perspective; so it is unwise to expect him to change his mind as a matter of course. That written, he is in such a dire financial position, and so desperate to regain his past credibility, that deals are there to be done. But, if not, it will be for the rest of NATO to decide whether the strategic importance of Turkey is greater than that of Sweden and Turkey, my guess is that it probably is, for now. There is a legal mechanism for parting Turkey from the rest of NATO, it is in material breach of several obligatory commitments that members undertake to adhere to. Expulsion is probably the wrong word for what would result, removal or separating being more apt, but the effect would be the same.

[@zix_zix_zix]

"it will be for the rest of NATO to decide whether the strategic importance of Turkey is greater than that of Sweden and Turkey, my guess is that it probably is, for now". - Totally disagree; Finland's and Sweden's strategic importance is far greater than Turkey's in the current state of affairs. Having them in NATO would bring massive strategic advantages. Everything else pales in comparison, when considering NATO-Russia affairs, which is obviously NATO's primary concern.

[@BenjiBlabs]

Another thing to point out on the Turkey debacle- Turkey is requesting all sanctions lifted related to the purchase of Russian S-400s. On top of that, they want, not only the F-16s from the US, but also are requesting to rejoin the F-35 program (which they were expelled from after purchasing the S-400s). Russia would love to see the Turkish military test the S-400 on the F-35. The US does not that happening, at all. I don’t think the US views Sweden and Finland as more important than Turkey in terms of NATO membership, because the Bosporus is just that important. This is could be the breaking point topic on Turkey’s demands, Turkey knows they have all the leverage. But this could also be a starting point in negotiations. What a time we’re in, keep up the content.

[@vinniechan]

Yeah but look at it the other way it also means a NATO member has its hands on Russian system so it cuts both ways

[@BenjiBlabs]

@@vinniechan it’s more of an intel advantage for Russia if they were to get a radar signature of an F-35. Just don’t know how Russia’s 5th gen missile system does defending the F-35. It’s like giving the opposing team the playbook before the super bowl.

[@zix_zix_zix]

I disagree; Finland's location is extremely important. It is situated a few miles away from St. Petersburg and Murmansk!! It also controls the maritime corridor between Russia and Kaliningrad in the Baltic Sea!! There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, more important than this, in current state of affairs. NATO would get MASSIVE strategic advantages if Finland joined NATO. Sweden is also important because with it in NATO, in effect NATO would be in complete control of the Baltic Sea. The Bosporus is definitely important, but not that important, especially nowadays. Turkey had been warned numerous times that the purchase of the S-400 would lead to their expulsion from the F-35 programme. They made their choice and decided to pursue a closer relationship with Russia. Nothing we can do about that.

[@bilic8094]

They did the right thing with the purchase of the S-400 it's hands down the best air defense system with a record shoot down of 150 km away who wouldn't want that just like turkey has the best dron the Tb2 Russia has I would say three items any country would want that is the S-400 the ka 52 alligator helicopter and the khinzal missile.

[@bilic8094]

@@vinniechan it doesn't really work like that the domestic is always better I'm sure the S-400 given to Turkey isn't the exact same as the ones for Russia same as when the US or Israel sell f16's something is taken out.

[@adamroberts919]

Another great video, please could you do a video covering diplomatic contact between Governments who are at war with each other?

[@zn9219]

Russia has no interest in invading Finland and the West has no interest in invading Russia, Finland-Sweden joining NATO is symbolic not strategic.

[@linusfotograf]

It’s strategic in that the Baltic Sea will be dominated by NATO

[@toby9999]

Russia would invade Finland if it wanted to. I see nothing stopping it except the fear of losing the battle.

[@toby9999]

@@linusfotograf And that's a good thing.

[@FINNSTIGAT0R]

Finnish armed forces have about that amount of active personnel that you mentioned in the video. But, and this is a big but, Finland's military operates on conscription and reserves. Our true war time strenght is about 280 000 soldiers. This is our army's true size once mobilized. Furthermore we have reserves of about 900 000 to pull from, but that figure is theoretical, since it really scrapes all the available resources, and those manpower resources might not be of a very good quality, fighting wise I mean. And our military has the biggest artillery force in Europe, if you don't include Russia or Turkey, which are not usually considered Europe per se. We also bought just recently a batch of 65 fighter jets from the US, the new F35's, which puts our defence expenditure above the 2% target for NATO. These are important things, so I hope people read this and understand that we're not some tiny military power asking for a handout, but actually a major contributor if we get in NATO.

[@bilic8094]

Finland is to small only 5 million people with a border that long look at Ukraine 44 million and the battlefield is starting to tilt in Russia's favor I wouldn't like Finland's chances against the Russian bear.

[@nian60]

@@bilic8094 You do realise that Finland would not be alone, right?

[@bilic8094]

@@nian60 you think Ukraine is alone ? With that much money and weapons dumped into the country.

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

That's all true but F-35s are not coming until 2026

[@pieter-bashoogsteen2283]

@@bilic8094 I wouldn't exactly say that the battlefield either. I you have been following the war you would know that Russia has pulled back from the north around Kiev and that Ukraine has been making some gains around Kharkiv. Russia has been slowly advancing towards Izium but other than that the front seems pretty static. Also they are losing so many vehicles, so I don't know how you reach the conclusion that the battlefield is tilting in their favour. Just look at Oryx they just lost an example of their most advanced thats actually in service, the T-90M.

[@mikoske]

Finland's numbers are a bit off, although it ccan be difficult to find exact numbers. Wartime strength around 280 000, 870 000 total reserve. Active are probably close to being correct, that is some career military personnel and yearly conscripts. Finland's spending already at 2.0% with the recent F-35 deal. I think last poll before sending in Nato application was around 76% in favour. And the vote in the parliament was pretty clear 188 MPs in favour and 8 against. I read Sweden will raise defense to 2% by 2028.

[@Crafty_Spirit]

Exchanging Turkey's membership for Finland and Sweden? 😅 That seems like quite the emotional wish, understandable but reckless? If I recall correctly, Turkey has the 2nd largest army of all Nato members and the country's strategically valuable position constitute priceless assets. The possibility that relationships between Turkey and other Nato members will improve is still realistic in the mid-term, Erdogan can be bribed with questionable political concessions and military equipment or his eventual successor may reverse his foreign policies. Not exactly dignified diplomacy I expect to come out of this...

[@upnorth2421]

Nordic countries could however block St.Petersburg from the Baltic sea. That is also a good strategic aim. My personal view is that Erdpgan is 1. trying to please Russia and 2. haggling. Pretty sure this will be dealt with. But Erdogan is not eternal, no-one is. I hope that Tirkey can move towards more democratic society in the future. Finland is not going to change its policy regarding turkish opposition members that we have given an asylum.

[@leifharmsen]

It is time to reconsider the unanimity rule.

[@richiesd1]

I support Turkey

[@AchyutChaudhary]

Nice video! For anyone smart here, what about 🇧🇦Bosnia & Herzegovina, 🇬🇪Georgia & 🇺🇦Ukraine who're already the countries in NATO's list for joining in the future for the past 2 DECADES (current status quo being with Intensified Dialogue/ MAP)? Haven't they already applied way before Sweden & Finland will in the future (& hence, would likely become members first before them)?

[@nian60]

That's not how it works. Go and read the NATO charter on how to join.

[@EarnestBunbury]

And regarding turkey: they are a very unpleasant member for sure, but because of their location at the Baltic Sea turkey’s membership is more crucial than the Scandinavian countries‘. Who, as eu members, are already established parts of the west

[@zix_zix_zix]

Turkey is NOT located at the Baltic Sea; the Nordic countries are. Finland is located a few miles away from St. Petersburg and Murmansk. No other location is more important than that.

[@EarnestBunbury]

@@zix_zix_zix correct. I meant the strait of Bosporus next to Istanbul

[@oswoldjacobs2922]

Very informative. Seems to me Turkey is flexing it's muscle. They want to be seen by the members of NATO as a member to be reckon with and increase their status in Nato and Europe. "You need us". Their position on the two new applications is a clear sign of that, or maybe they want to side with Russia positioning them as a crucial player in international affairs. Turkey's position is also a clear sign to NATO that an expelsion clause is needed.

[@tobiaslundqvist.71]

They also want's weapons embargos lifted. Mostly from the US of course, but also Swedish. Since Sweden have a lot of hightech weapons, that are presently banned for Turkey to buy.

[@HannahHäggAutisticTransWoman]

I am swedish it's a very good choise for my country to join Nato

[@enduser8410]

People are talking about Turkey blocking their membership, but what about Croatia? Not sure what's going on there. The president stated he will block them citing Bosnian Croats being "destroyed" while the official government Twitter account said they were not blocking said countries.

[@faetont]

He is trying to get some concessions regarding Bosnia, but ultimatively he doesn't have enough power to do anything. So, no problems from our side, we will nod our heads as always.

[@blava3155]

Nosnian Croats being destroyed where?

[@skwarubwa7083]

Well done, JKL.Do Sweden and Finland derive any geo-political benefit from backing the Kurds or is their support strictly ideological?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks very much. I don’t think it’s about Sweden (and we’re really talking about Sweden) deliberately targeting Turkey. It is more a case than Sweden has a particular approach to asylum and free speech that has made it welcoming to persecuted groups. This is about Sweden’s commitment to human rights and democratic values, rather than its specific dislike of Turkey. It is an interesting situation. Sweden in many ways exemplifies what we would like to see in all NATO members. And maybe those groups wouldn’t have taken root in Sweden if this’d values had been more strongly applied in Turkey, where the Kurds have faced a long history of persecution; although, and credit where credit is due, it must be emphasised that things have improved a lot under Erdogan.

[@skwarubwa7083]

​@@JamesKerLindsay Perhaps Sweden is trying to amends for its own past behavior, a troubled history of aggressive forced assimilation of its indigenous Sámi population and encroachment upon Sámi lands for energy production.

[@zix_zix_zix]

@@JamesKerLindsay With all due respect Professor, I am not sure that "things have improved a lot under Erdogan". Under Erdogan's regime, Turkey has continued its brutal policies of persecution of the Turkish Kurds. In southeastern parts of the country, where Kurdish populations live, martial law is constantly in effect and the human rights violations reported are absolutely abhorrent. The Turkish state routinely removes elected Kurdish officials from municipal and other authorities, and detains them for years, with pro-AKP unelected "administrators" replacing them. Moreover, Kurds have been completely isolated from the Turkish legislature, given that the pro-minority and progressive Kurdish political party (HDP), one of the largest parties in Turkey, has been treated as a terrorist organization and dozens of its elected parliamentarians (including the party leadership), and many thousands of party members, have been imprisoned. Other pro-Kurdish parties have suffered the same fate. In northern Syria, Turkish forces (and the jihadi militant groups associated with Turkey) have persecuted and cause the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Syrian Kurds. Therefore, respectfully I disagree.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@zix_zix_zix Thanks. Perhaps I should have said that things improved a lot, but many gains have since been rolled back.

[@zix_zix_zix]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for clarifying that!

[@samatha1994]

It would be great symbolically if Sweden and Finland joined NATO though even their application for NATO membership sends a strong message about the reaction to the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. For Finland and Sweden NATO membership would be a useful insurance policy on top of the ones they have already. Sweden, Finland and the UK have just signed a mutual defence agreement on 11th May 2022 in case any of them are attacked. In practice that would mean the Joint Expeditionary Force, a coalition led by the UK with Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands. It was set up in 2014 (when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea) to provide a fast multi disciplinary response capability focussed on northern European defence with like minded countries as members. The last major exercise was at the end of March 2022 and at the end of 2021 the UK committed an additional £3.5 billion to the JEF. In addition Finland and Sweden are part of the EU, with its mutual defence clause *"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. "* What is clear is that Putin has invaded Ukraine, killing tens of thousands of people- Ukrainian and Russian. He has broken international treaties and commitments in doing so and in the behaviour of Russian forces in Ukraine. He lied to world leaders, threated Sweden and Finland if they joined NATO, though changed that to "I'm relaxed about it". Clearly Putin sets little importance to any treaties and, given Stalin's previous invasion of Finland and the reasons why, and for bolstering the Baltics and Norway, which becomes even more important for energy and the Arctic in years to come, it seems very sensible that Finland and Sweden get as much "Russian invasion" insurance as possible, and also in Europe's interests. Turkey is in a difficult position- with links to the other European nations as well as Russia. Turkey's economy isn’t doing well. Turkey gets a third of its gas from Russia. And Putin can make things harder for Turkey - potentially causing further waves of refugees from Syria. And with Erodgan fighting re-election in June 2023 the last thing he needs is more issues in Turkey. The PKK concerns may seem dubious to many but there some domestic reasons for it too. So Finland, Sweden approval would look more likely after that- depending on what Putin does in the meantime.

[@HAL_9001]

Excellent comment. I would also put forward that this could be a watershed moment for Turkey. Whether it continues to be aligned with the west or begin converting itself into Russia's 2nd Belarus.

[@walrus1074]

@@HAL_9001 Are you seriously comparing Turkey with Belarus? Turkey is much much much more powerful than that puppet state, Turkey is regional power in their own right with many times the economy of Belarus and a ton more influence, Turkey wants to achieve great power status and one of their ways of doing that is a strategic partnership with Russia but they no doubt they don't want to be Putin's puppet.

[@HAL_9001]

​ @Walrus What other strategic partners does Russia have besides Belarus? China and India; 2 countries it can sometimes count on whom barely see eye to eye. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela; they're not going to compete with US and EU commercially, nor with NATO militarily. There is a saying I hear a lot lately; Russia plays chess, the west plays checkers. I agree. Russia sees itself as a king ruling its pawns and looking for more. The west _tries_ for a more egalitarian approach called democracy, where everyone gets a vote. Which seems fairer? Turkey has a thriving economy because of its close ties to the west. Ties that Russia would love to see severed. Compare Belarus to either of its neighbors; Poland or Lithuania. You'll see the future of Turkey as Russia's ally. Most likely Erdogan is just blustering for his 2023 election bid. Hopefully there won't be a 2027 referendum removing his term limits wherein, "work there would be finished before it even started".

[@zix_zix_zix]

It would not be great only _symbolically_ . Finland's and Sweden's accession would bring extremely important strategic advantages for NATO!!

[@toby9999]

I've never understould why Turkey is a NATO member? Seems an odd fit.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Good question. But it relates to the situation at the start of the Cold War. Although Turkey was neutral for most of the Second World War, it had a long-standing fear of Russia. More to the point, it had a vital security position as the guardian of the Bosphorus, which links the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Also it was the only non-arctic route directly into the Soviet Union (Norway being the only other NATO member with a border with the USSR.) NATO offered it protection and it offered NATO strategic advantages.

[@KonstanzArrens]

You must remember why NATO was created in the first place. It was one of the military organisations that underpinned the American policy of containment - surrounding and '''containing'' the Soviet Union. SEATO and CENTO were other such military organisations. Turkey, because of its geo-strategic position and because it bordered the USSR, was an ideal candidate for NATO membership - at that time. The US had even based nuclear missiles there, which it removed after a secret agreement with the Soviets following the Cuban missile crisis.

[@permarkusrisman6471]

I’m sorry but Finland was forced to neutrality after they lost WWII against the soviets after they aligned themselves with nazi-Germany in the continuation war where they wanted to regain the territory they lost in the winter war.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I have to say that there’s rather a lot of rights and wrongs to unpack there!

[@permarkusrisman6471]

@@JamesKerLindsay i would be happy for you to unpack it!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@permarkusrisman6471 Maybe another time! :-)

[@historyking9984]

Surprised Greece has the highest defense expenditure of Nato

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Yes, it has the highest defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP. But the USA has by far the highest expenditure.

[@vangelisskia214]

You shouldn't be surprised. Greece's neighbor is not... Luxemburg or Belgium, but the Islamofascist Turkish state with openly declared neo-ottoman aspirations.

[@mariosathens1]

There is no other option for Greece since Turkey is No1 threat for Greece's security. And Turkey doesn;t hesitate to use its armed forces for political or diplomatic gains (Caucasus, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Cyprus etc)

[@joqqeman]

@@vangelisskia214 well the economic collapse has a thing or two to do with this as well..

[@thetraveller1612]

And the highest debts. Some countries just don't seem to learn.

[@daveh893]

Well, today, Turkey has come around and Sweden and Finland are expected to become part of the alliance soon.

[@EarnestBunbury]

Would Sweden‘s and Finland’s membership really be such a game changer? As EU members they should be already protected by the other members and in consequence also the USA. Would joining NATO really constitute a significant change?

[@rejvaik00]

100% yes both Sweden and Finland are some of the few nations who kept up with military readiness for decades and they can mobilize 250,000 soldiers extremely quickly They also would be contributors to the alliance and not just use it like other poorer nations such as Romania or Albania Not only that but it would expand the NATO border along Russia significantly, currently the NATO Russia border is a small sliver up in Norway/Russia border And it would also turn the Baltic sea into a NATO lake where Russian submarines couldn't hide or freely use the passage of the seas without violating territorial sovereignty Lastly most of the Russian nukes are only a few hundred miles from the Finnish/Russian border meaning in the event of a conflict with NATO the alliance members could easily seize control over those sites

[@zix_zix_zix]

Just look at Sweden and Finland's location on the map and you will understand!! It would be the ultimate game changer!!

[@hkchan1339]

NATO is created to contain Russia. Having the 2 help keeping the Russian navy in Baltic Sea is essential Finland has a long border with Russia and had a very close distance to Russia’s nuclear silo just across their northern border Both countries are also strong militarily for their size and will keep the Russians very busy if the try to invade any NATO member

[@EarnestBunbury]

@@hkchan1339 all that you stated is correct, without a doubt. But what still isn't answered is, if the Nato membership of the two countries is such a game changer. Both are committed to a western path for many many decades, so has anything really changed? Ukraine is a completely different case. The country has been Moscow's puppet for a very long time, but has changed its team only now. Norway and Sweden always were a part of the west and as members of the EU at least protected by the other members

[@EarnestBunbury]

@@hkchan1339 I agree with all of that, but didn’t the west already profit of that, as both are members of the eu?

[@tatradak]

James I think you do the pros and cons of Turkey leaving or staying within NATO.. We need to understand Turkeys point of view.. They support Ukraine with the Bayrakar Drone on one hand and then buy Russian missiles with the other.. Maybe they want out...and profit from thier perceived neutral position..

[@123DOWNUNDER890]

They support Ukraine because they don’t want to loose access to Ukraine through the Black Sea.

[@tatradak]

@@123DOWNUNDER890 Sorry but how's that Turkey problem, its Ukraine problem and surely has nothing to do with NATO, plus Turkey is profiting from the sale of the Drones to Ukraine and I would say impressing everyone on how cheap and capable they are..

[@_loss_]

They sell them to Ukraine. They're not donations.

[@g4m3r222]

They need to join Nato, just in case.

[@nemokenash]

Why nobody mention opinion of Croatia?

[@mnoorkhan]

How can you say that Members would trade Sweden Finland for Turkey?? Did you see who controls the black sea access.... That is far more important that Nordic countries given that Russian baltic fleet is already restricted bcx of Danish strait.... Black sea fleet is restricted because Turkey control over Bosphorus... So giving up Turkey is almost impossible

[@JamesKerLindsay]

My point is that Turkey had established a reputation as a completely unreliable member. No one is sure if these advantages would really mean anything.

[@mnoorkhan]

@@JamesKerLindsay yes Turkey plays on both sides... But what do you think, is Turkey also treated fairly?? Like they have been kicked out off F35 jet program and some sanctions placed on it after buying Russian S400 when US refused Turkey to sell air defence... But India on the hand is not sanctioned after it did the same thing..... So don't you think Turkey is also treated wrongly?? And Turkey also supports National government in Libya as does US and UNO but France supports rebels.. So is France unreliable now too?? Or these are local issues that contradicts members individual interests... Like Turkey vs Greece is an interesting case

[@samhaslemere7471]

@@JamesKerLindsayTurkey is the flagship of 250 millions Turkic people, it is not just Turkey. Russian defence minister S. Shoigu is a Turk, central bank governoress Elmira Shekipzadeh is a Turk, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamanei is a Turk, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tataristan, Bashkortistan,.. are Turkic states, there are 25 millions Uyghurs in China, Yakuts, Tuvas are Turk, etc. And Scandinavian minnows! You can't compare Brazil to Paraguay, India to Maldives.

[@samhaslemere7471]

@@mnoorkhan You are telling something they don't want to hear :)

[@robinwilson2238]

I notice you have not place a link to NATO's website for further reading in your description. Go to NATO website for further reading.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. It should be there. I put links to the Charter and the Treaty. They are both on the NATO website.

[@robinwilson2238]

@@JamesKerLindsay 👍

[@martinblastak2163]

I think it is important to note that 2% budget defense spending is not mandatory in any way nor is it NATO requirement. It is a political pledge made by the member states. What NATO cares about is country's capacity to fulfill its defense commitments. As such, country with less than 2% spending (Norway) might be applauded for its commitment while country that spends more (Greece) is considered unreliable. Oblý thing that matters is how well member states commit to capability targets of detence planning procese. Those 2% are just something journalists and politicians can point to, but it is absolutely irrelevant for any analysis of member state contribution to NATO security, since tge military budget might go things unrelated to issued capacity targets.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

The Turkish veto against Finland and Sweden is totally unfair, the Turkish administration is trying to gain leverage on the expense of those two countries... i also feel that if those two countries don't manage to become members of NATO they will have to get into an arms race that could make relationships with Russia even worse

[@KonstanzArrens]

You honestly believe Russia is a threat to a NEUTRAL Sweden or Finland? It hasn't been the case since WW II. And why is Russia in Ukraine in the first place? The answer is plain and simple - NATO expansion. Amazing the twisted logic on this issue. Or should I say American propaganda, repeated like parrots by its various proxies and lackeys in Europe and elsewhere. Talk about American exceptionalism (IMPERIALISM) masquerading as ''freedom and democracy'' ... and all things ''holy''. lol

[@andrewsarantakes639]

Turkey is creating leverage in order to gain concessions from other NATO members. It seem that Turkey is not a committed alliance member, and simply stays in NATO so they can use their membership as political leverage when needed. Excellent video with accurate facts.

[@djangomango9555]

Sweden and Finnland are in European Union and Not in Nato!! Your so Strong European union can Help you

[@mirandapillsbury7885]

I do understand Turkey's hesitation to be fair BUT I truly do not believe this is the time to be playing such games. I really wish there was a way they can work things out with Sweden and Finland over their support of terrorist organizations after NATO accession...perhaps some sort of written / formal guarantees or something?

[@elainelouve]

Finland and Sweden don't support terrorist organizations. However especially Sweden has critizised Turkey for human rights violations. Erdogan is apparently successful in his rhetorics... Trying to talk as if he wasn't just playing political games, keeping the NATO admission hostage to gain support for his actions instead of criticism.

[@wsson7177]

@@elainelouve You nailed it🎯

[@cuteerebos2155]

But how are they supposed to work things out with these nordic countries after acession, if these countries then have no reason anymore to concede. Turkey has an opportunity to work these things out now, because it's the only opportunity they'll ever get.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

No, Turkey knows exactly what is happening and leverages it to get something from them. It doesn't matter to Erdogan that he's being a jerk in this situation, he's gonna milk this until it happens...

[@mirandapillsbury7885]

@@elainelouve Well of course the main motivator is the fact that Sweden has been critical of Erdogan's human rights track record but I wish to not undermine the very REAL concerns of the Turkish people in regards to the PKK. I'm sorry but no matter how we twist it, the PKK is a terror organization and is desginated as such by most of the civilized world. The fact that Sweden even remotely supports them is enough cause for concern. I will not downplay that and I hope you don't either.

[@user-kc1tf7zm3b]

Professor Ker-Lindsay, is there a possible extraordinary legal mechanism where Nato can admit both Finland and Sweden, over Turkey’s objections, all the while keeping Turkey in Nato? Rules are rules… until there are new rules. Thank you. 🇦🇺 🦘

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great question. No, there doesn’t seem to be a way around it. Article 5 explicitly requires unanimity. In some organisations an abstention doesn’t count as a negative vote and so is permitted. I’m not sure if this works for NATO.

[@jackholler3572]

Why not just meet Turkeys concerns ? Is it that hard ? I mean Turkey does not ask for something huge. Just its security.

[@sointu123]

@@JamesKerLindsay Yes, it does. This doesn't help in this situation though, since Turkey is actively going to vote against their membership (as things currently stand).

[@bilic8094]

@@jackholler3572 I know it doesn't seem like that much of an obstacle Sweden just has to hand over all the Kurdish guys Erdogan wants and for Sweden to stop supporting the pkk that doesn't seem like extra high demands.

[@richardhussey7641]

I Turkey does not veto Finland or Sweden. We need NATO too show unity too the rest of the world.

[@richardhussey7641]

I hope I mean.

[@robinwilson2238]

Go to NATO's website! There is a wealth of knowledge there to read at your leisure.

[@BulentHarput]

I think it would be more accurate to say that Turkey is willing Nordics to cooperate in its long lasting fight against PKK terrorists rather than offering a safe harbor. Some of the people there should be just escaping from oppression here. But obviously there are others who are freely praising and supporting terrorists. The difference may not be critical for the west, but it's decisive for us. Yet I don't feel Erdoğan's main motive is that. The greater success he aims can be to get US stop backing up PKK. Or maybe he hopes to get something bigger from Russia. Anyway let's wait a few years and public support to Nato will drop in north again. For those commenting on Art.5, I believe NATO can back us up only against Iran and maybe Russia, and that back up can be in the level given to Ukraine. The world doesn't need a third world war.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Yes. And I think a lot of Turkey’s partners wish that Turkey was a willing and reliable partner in their efforts to tackle various issues. Erdogan is not winning any friends by his behaviour!

[@RobBCactive]

Are there PKK training camps on the Swedish lakes? It would be a poor choice of terrain. Don't expect Nordic public opinion to change much, the bottom line is all the treaties Russia has broken AND Putin attempted to coerce these countries with threats.

[@FINNSTIGAT0R]

Finland is not, and has never been a safe haven for any PKK terrorists. Our government considers PKK a terrorist organisation and in a phone call in April between our president mr. Niinistö and Turkey's president mr. Erdogan there was not a single mentioned of Finland harbouring any terrorists, but instead Erdogan was concerned about an arms embargo Finland has against Turkey, which is also something we didn't do on our own. And this call was made exactly because our president was asking how the Turks feel about a Finnish membership in NATO. It's hard to imagine that if Finland is such a terrorist safe haven that Erdogan didn't know about it in April of 2022. Or that it has no mentions on google, until just recently. So what is this fuzz all about? Of course we and our national security are used as leverage for Turkey to get the US sanctions etc off. Really nasty business, playing with our national security because of grievances with the US.

[@FOLIPE]

@@JamesKerLindsay Friends who ask for help and don't give it in return are usually called by another name.

[@FOLIPE]

@@FINNSTIGAT0R I'm not even turk but this seems like a case of one side thinking their problems are worth more than the other's. Turkey has every right defend their own interests as does Finland. Why shouldn't the other members prioritize Turkey's concerns, but be it turkey to concede and put themselves in second, third, fourth place? Nordic countries aren't the only ones in complex geopolitical situations

[@imnotanalien7839]

I would definitely swap Turkey for Sweden and Finland. 😄 … Turkey is going bankrupt…they won’t be able to pay their bills to NATO. Your lecture was very interesting and informative. PS: Hopefully both countries will be fast tracked to NATO…..

[@roenin]

Lol nobody pays "bills" to NATO. It's not that sort of a club... 😂😂😂 Also, Turkish economy has seen far worse. I hope Turkey guarantees its own security in this one and blocks Sweden until all 5 principles are agreed to by the little leftover vikings.

[@samhaslemere7471]

@@roenin How these people survived so far, it is jaw dropping. Some of them swap Scandinavian minnows with Turkey, some of them pays to NATO. Typical example of "bilgisi yok, fikri var-has no knowledge but full of ideas". Western ignorance is frightening.

[@ioannisimansola7115]

If they accept to sucumb to the Turkish "anomalies"

[@gerardfreeman8784]

Turkeys reason for objecting does not stand scrutiny so either Erdogan -who is dependent on Russian oil/grain is cosying upto Putinn or trying to extract "concessions" from his NATO partners

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

Turkey foreign policy is very weird they want to appease every side and wants to look neutral but their way leads to most of countries getting hostile against them. Like they are against russia in syria and i heard even banned syrian airspace for russia while giving Ukraine weapons then they do this thing. This foreign policy doesn't helps them. They want to look superpower of world but this leads to Turkey getting more isloated

[@johansoningmar8212]

Turkey can't really go against Russia right now due to its first ever nuclear power plant project.

[@FOLIPE]

It's not weird, it's just that their situation is hard so of course they make hard choices

[@kaanaydinofficial]

Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde has tried to question Turkey unconsciously, mocking it in the past, Swedish MEP Amineh Kakabaveh defends the PKK, YPG terrorist organizations. Swedish MEP Amineh Kakabaveh uses very ugly words against Turkey. The Swedish Parliament supports terrorist organizations. Many people in Sweden embrace terrorist organizations and try to defend them. Sweden resolutely defends the PKK, YPG, PYD and many other terrorist organizations. Sweden has provided $ 400 million in support to terrorist organizations such as the PKK, YPG, PYD. A large number of Swedish-made weapons were supplied to terrorist organizations.

[@kaanaydinofficial]

@Sven Andersson Do not slander the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkey, the Prosecutors of Turkey, the Supreme Court of Turkey, the Democracy of the Republic of Turkey. What is your duty to question the Republic of Turkey? Turkey has spent 50 billion dollars to help 10 million refugees. Turkey welcomes millions of foreigners.

[@kaanaydinofficial]

@Sven Andersson 10 million Kurdish people live peacefully in Turkey. The Kurdish people of Turkey do not have a problem. Turkey offers a lot of opportunities to the Kurdish people. The Kurds living in Turkey are not the PKK, YPG. The Turks and the Turkish state have no problems with the Kurds.

[@kaanaydinofficial]

@Sven Andersson The YPG and the PKK carry out terrorist attacks in many parts of the world by these terrorist groups in the Middle East region outside the border. A lot of non-governmental organizations, a lot of Turkish soldiers carried out attacks on Turkish civil society. Many people have been attacked by PKK, YPG terrorist organizations in Turkey, France, Germany, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. The terrorist organizations organizing these attacks are the PKK and the YPG.

[@kaanaydinofficial]

@Sven Andersson PKK YPG terrorist groups are carrying out attacks every day, there are reports about it every day, Turkish journalists are reporting about it, but your press is not interested in these reports.

[@kaanaydinofficial]

@Sven Andersson There is a security problem in the Middle East and in Northern Europe. Northern Europe creates an extra security problem for Turkey, there is a crisis in Northern Europe. It can hit countries such as Russia, Sweden and Finland. Northern Europe is considered a security problem very close to the borders of the Russian Federation. The fact that Sweden and Finland are NATO countries means the Third World War. Turkey is one of the 3 most powerful NATO states. Turkey sees the security problem in Northern Europe.

[@enginkazanci4727]

If Turkey would be excluded, then in no time Ankara would have to produce nukes and they have the technology to do this since the 70s. All the "strategy map" on the globe will change for the next century.

[@Nihat86]

Sounds like you don't like Turkey much.

[@toby9999]

Plenty of reasons to not like Turkey politically.

[@Nihat86]

@@toby9999 but he speaks so highly of other nations, they have plenty more reasons to not be liked politically speaking.

[@bruceli9094]

Sweden and Finland should build Hypersonic nuclear missiles. What's Russia going to do about it??

[@sointu123]

That definitely is not an option!

[@carinagidlof5331]

No nukler in Sweden. And no Nato bas in peacetimes. That Russia really don't like... And Sweden allways fight for smaller nukler allround the world

[@bruceli9094]

@@sointu123 All options on the table.

[@bruceli9094]

@@carinagidlof5331 China got hypernukes, and Russia did nothing.

[@nian60]

Would NATO remove Turkey from NATO in exchange for Sweden/Finland? Who is more valuable, Turkey or Sweden/Finland? For Hungary and Croatia that answer is easy. But what is the stance when it comes to Turkey? I haven't seen anyone talk about this. Assuming NATO has a "remove country" clause.

[@robertbones326]

We're not removing either. Turkey just wants concessions.

[@nian60]

@@robertbones326 But if Turkey's concessions are too unreasonable? What then?

[@dainomite]

I’d rather remove Turkey and have Sweden and Finland if it came to it. But that won’t happen. Inshallah Erdogan is out in 2023.

[@nian60]

@@dainomite OK. So is it only Erdogan that is blocking, or is it the whole Turkish political establishment? If it's only one person then I guess we will have to wait until that person is gone. If it's the whole establishment it could be trickier.

[@berkosmansatiroglu]

Maybe if you say that you will cover our losses in 44 years.

[@1290DR]

Thanks for this video! I actually do support the notion that neither Finnlad nor Seden should join NATO (at least not for the time being) obviously my reasons are very different from Erdogans but never the less. I thinl they put Europe more in danger and area on quite hectic, fear driven and therefor selfish grounds instead of based on careful analysis. I don't see a reason why these countries should be accepted amd haven't found a compelling argument for it yet... My core question is: Why should NATO accept a country which is (even if only by perception) in high danger of having to go into war with another country and therefor potentially will drag a whole continent into war IF accepted to this organisation?

[@Bleach1443]

I feel the issue with that viewpoint is that Russia is unlikely to act anymore threatening toward Finland and Sweden then it already does toward the Baltic states and Poland which it borders. It threatens but never does anything because their in NATO. If Finland and Sweden where to join the odd of Russia attacking are so low as it knows what the cost would be and there it arguably nothing worth such costs. Russia only went after Ukraine because it wasn’t in NATO. It knew it could pick it off in a one on one battle. If Finland and Sweden stay outside of NATO Russia may feel it can do the same with them. The risk of them joining doesn’t seem to increase the risk anymore then the risk exists now. I do have to say I find it a bit ironic that you claim that this decision is based on “Fear driven and therefore selfish grounds I stand of based on carful analysis”. Your opposition to them joining though seems fear based on the fear mongering I’ve been hearing that it will lead to WW3. I feel those who claim that don’t understand why attacking Finland in general would be massively costly to Russia even outside of NATO let alone inside of it. The Russians act radically but they aren’t completely brain dead. Finland and Sweden joining would secure their defense and decrease the odds Russia will mess with them. Besides many European nations have already said they could come to their defense even while outside of NATO. If NATO didn’t work then Russia clearly would have gone after the Baltic states long ago.

[@1290DR]

@@Bleach1443 Hey there! I don't think that Russia has any intentions to "invade" Finland or Sweden unless they keep threatening (or at this point continue) to push for a membership in NATO. There has been no real thread regarding those countries being swalloed by russia before that (at least according to my knowledge). Imho it only invaded ukraine bc it felt coerced into it by neverending ignorations by the biden admin to acknowledge some of their security concerns. Those presumptions are the baseline of my point of view (which is important to know for any further assessment of my opinion I guess) I don't think that neither Finland nor Sweden would be any saver in the alliance as they are now given the incredible tense situation and the seemingly willingsness to do whatever it takes by the west as well as russia to get their point of views/concerns across and pushed through - the power game is on. Also as you stated in the end of your answer, the connections betweend those two countries and the west are tight already and both have been given security assurances that they will be helped in case of a russian invasion, so whatelse do they need? NATO on the other hand will be compelled to far further reaching measurements and the conflict will be way harder to contain regionaly if a NATO membership is in place. Regarding fear on my side: No I have no fear of WW3, I am rather convinced the urge for money and profit by the most powerful people who also participated heavily in creating the situation we are in right now will keep them from going to far and making sure their population keeps producing and spending. But I am concerned about the situation that will arise in europe (essp. for the weaker people of society) and is already deteriorating. Bc clearly the european admins are willing to sacrifies many people for this tiny chance of winning this power-game. And this is something I am not willing to go by or accept onyl to have two more members in NATO that have been fine and decided against it for quite some time and really good reasons. Reasons that still haven't changed.

[@雷-t3j]

how is responding to a neighbours aggression by joining a defensive alliance hectic, fear driven, or selfish? Obviously Finland and Sweden are looking out for themselves, but they will also add immense strategic and military potential to the alliance, that will allow them to defend norway and the baltics much more easily. Additionally, they are ideologically aligned with NATO and part of the West, so them joining shows solidarity among liberal democracies. And they are not in high danger of a war with Russia, so even if people think they are, why should that change anything? Russia will likely be tied up in Ukraine for at least another six months, and even if they weren't Finland would probably be able to fight them off if they are attacked, so there's no worry of them being invaded in the meantime. And NATO and Russia are not going to fight an actual war, because both are nuclear powers, so if one side thinks they've lost the whole world goes up in smoke. And even in a conventional war Russia is not going to make it past Poland, so it definitely won't "drag a whole continent" into war, even if all NATO members send troops.

[@Bleach1443]

@@1290DR Again I do find it a bit ironic. Sweden and Finland aren’t “Threatening” Russia their joining a military defense alliance one that has never threatened to attack Russia. Russia on the other hand even before Finland or Sweden got serious about joining was threatening they would attack them if they even attempted to join. Russia backtracked now that Finland and Sweden are serious. To the Swedish and Finland their public supports membership and they would be the ones more vulnerable in society if an attack where to happen. Look at it from Finland and Swedens point of view. Everyone who said Russia might invade Ukraine were all called Nuts! And told they never would. And look at that? They did it. While the west has verbally agree to defend them there is nothing officially committing them to uphold that point of view. It’s easily for you to brush aside their concerns but when their nations are the ones who would pay the price? The risk isn’t worth playing around with. That’s not selfish to not want to die as you imply. If you aren’t running on fear then what’s the issue? You seem to recognize it’s unlikely Russia will attack. And if you aren’t worried about that then what does it matter if they join? Nothing gets any worse or better then it already was. Your the same type of people who months ago said fears of Russia are irrational. WW3 isn’t going to happen and nothing is suddenly going to magically get worse with them being in NATO. Russia is likely to beef up its defense more and then sit there like it does with the rest of NATO. The only thing that changes is Finland and Sweden get a higher defense guarantee. Your not really making a strong argument against them joining. Unless your going to go the fear mongering route then your not really making a great argument for why they shouldn’t join? It benefits NATO and then and Russia already kept a close eye on them so nothing really changes other then higher security.

[@1290DR]

@@Bleach1443 @Nicholas Regarding your argument "Sweden and Finland aren't threatening Russia by joining a military defence alliance" - here we go the old defence-attack-paradox, what seems as defence to the one cam be perceived as thread or attack to the other. Finland and Sweden have kept neutrality and their state as buffer states ever since the collapse of the soviet union - and they did so for a reason, a reason that is still valid today. Regarding your argument that NATO has never attacked Russia: NATO was founded to balance out the former soviet union with its warsaw pact and kept going to keep russia in check! Regarding your point that nothing is officially compelling the NATO states to come to Finlands and Swedens defence while they are not in NATO, well during the application phase which takes as while they are still not under protection of article 5 which means.... They would konwingly and willingly put their populations in extreme danger if they would not trust those security assurances Regarding your Argument that nothing changes: Oh a hell lot changes: Russia is provoced even more, the war is likely to spread and ever harder to contain in one region, 100 of thousands of lifes and futures are in danger and all of this for a thread that could easily be mitigated by those states staying neutral. Without any fear but solely rational cost benefit calculation this is too big of a price to pay imho. Ukraine would be in peace right now if Zelenskyy would not have felt the urge to present himself as the hero of the ukrainians and gambled to lead his country into the west (the west that never truly wanted him until russia invaded). And no, I never believed russia would not invade, I for me had a tiny tiny hope that those wanna be leaders up there, would be able to find some common ground and leave their power assertions behind for the sake of the ukrainian people, but no (like I said it was tiny anyways)

[@ogamaniuk]

Can NATO really trade Finland and Sweden for Turkey? I might be wrong but maintaining some kind of good relationship with Turkey is more important for NATO and the West. Otherwise Turkey might be on the other side, russian or even Chinese.

[@zix_zix_zix]

And what if Russia attacks and invades Finland and Sweden? That would be even worse; actually it would be a nightmare for Europe. Also, don't worry about Turkey siding with Russia; that would never happen; they're just "frenemies".

[@ogamaniuk]

@@zix_zix_zix what's if russia attacks? You know the answer. Everyone will keep buying russian gas and oil and pretending nothing is happening.

[@zix_zix_zix]

@@ogamaniuk Umm.. I don't think that would be the case if Russia attacked the Nordic countries, dude..

[@ogamaniuk]

@@zix_zix_zix I don't want to offend anyone but Nordics now not like Vikings hundreds years ago. Remember what happened to Denmark when Hitler launched an attack? Was there any resistance? How long did it take? I can't see any Dutch or French or Italian (who were drinking wine with olives yesterday in their homeland) enroll in fighting for NATO for Sweden/Finland. Even today when another country so brutally attacked what most European countries do? Right, nothing. What many of them think now is the possibility of a fall of living quality by 5% because the gas prices might increase! What a disaster! Especially if you compare it to 10 million displaced, 20k dead in just a single city (Mariupol) and constant shelling of cities and infrastructure. Don't fool yourself.

[@zix_zix_zix]

@@ogamaniuk Things can change very rapidly my friend; do not underestimate the Europeans, they can be extremely motivated and unified when they face an external threat. They just don't rush into decisions; it's how things work. After this though, things are never going to be the same. This will be Putin's demise and Europeans will make it happen.

[@glenn07777]

Gossip says Turkey wants lift of embargo/sanctions and re-enter to F35 program and the rest is a pretense. However. Erdogan publicly admitted not long time ago that years ago Turkish engineers stole a crucial detail from an American drone and thus managed to finalize theirs. On top of that he said that he himself had some role on this by keeping occupied some people or something like that (ok maybe that was an exaggeration on his behalf). In the mean time the engineers took advantage of a time window of 24-36 hours where they worked non-stop and managed to steal and copy the detail. After that the Americans where furious and decided not to repeat that mistake with him. So, do not expect more details for him. Ever. And I bet that if he takes the upgrade of F16's it will be something of the last decade. They suspected that he wanted to read F35's sensitive data and use it as a bargaining chip with Putin. This is a very very critical crossroads for Turkey. And Erdogan knows that In the unlikely event of finding himself outside NATO, he cannot present himself to Putin as an asset but only as a beggar with no choice.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

It sounds like Erdogan is trying to project him self as a kinda James Bond super hero 😏 i won't be surprised if he starts saying that he personally operates the bayractar drones in Ukraine or that he got hold of some ancient alien technology.. Anyways it's quite obvious that the reason united states don't want to give Turkey their super jets is that Turkey could pretty fast learn how much of " stealth" those grafts are against Russian made AA systems and rely that info to Russia..

[@roenin]

That's not how any of that works. 24 hours lol, you are watching too much of those spy-action movies. Bayraktar drones are possible because of an MIT educated Turkish engineer. The rest is endless nights of coding and field testing, which is the reality for most of these success stories.

[@glenn07777]

@@roenin When I said "Erdogan publicly admitted", I meant that: 1. I heard that, 2. on TV, 3. myself, 4. from him, 5. directly. So, yes, this is exactly how that worked. But maybe this MIT engineer was the one sweating for 24 hours trying to steal the detail. Always according to Erdogan.

[@zccau2316]

This is extremely biased. Turkey has every right to reject countries that ally against them and support terrorists. Remember it is Turkey who has done the most against the Russians via Libya and Syria and had no support from the west. The chance of a united Europe not happening will be because of Sweden and Finland, not Turkey.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Frankly, Turkey has not shown anything like the solidarity with its allies that it is now demanding from others. In fact, most observers feel that Turkey has behaved atrociously in recent years. It has been an ally in name only. Now, you may not like to hear that. But that is how Turkey’s NATO partners see it. Erdogan’s has been flirting shamelessly with Putin. And if we’re talking about terrorists, Ankara had been quite happy to consort with Hamas, which all its partners regard as a terrorist group. It has also been rather friendly with the Taliban. Turkey can block the two countries if it wants. But my points stand. The other NATO members will be furious, not least of all because of its utter hypocrisy. So, instead of defending Turkey on this, and complaining about perceived bias, you might want to step back and take a look at how outsiders might see Turkey and think about whether, if you were them, you’d see Turkey as a good partner!?

[@thetraveller1612]

@@JamesKerLindsay sounds like a lot of whataboutism James. Turkey has never really been accepted by the West, its imperial history, 500 years conquest of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it has a lot of baggage coupled with its Muslim identity. For that reason Turkey has always had to try harder when dealing with the West. It was accepted into Nato after 1500 Turkish soilders lives were paid in Korea. How many troops did Greece loose in Korea? One thing that the West should realise is that the Turks will do what is best for the Turkish nation and not what outsiders think is best for them.

[@zccau2316]

@@JamesKerLindsay And when have Hamas or the Taliban been a direct threat to Norway and Sweden? The terrorists groups Norway and Sweden support are a direct threat to Turkey. How can you have an alliance with someone when they support your enemies. The rest of NATO needs to understand that and put their biases aside. Turkeys objections are legitimate. Also it doesn’t matter what other NATO members think when Turkey provides the second largest army to NATO, nevermind their strategic location. Once again any issues they have should be directed at Norway and Sweden for supporting enemy terrorists groups of a NATO ally. This would occur with any other NATO nation but as always they are treated differently. It’s also funny how you miss out Libya and Syria. Maybe the lack of western and NATO support had contributed to Turkey having to open backdoor channels with Putin. Last time I checked it was also France who were on the same side of the war in Libya? A fellow NATO ally supporting the Russians. Crazy right but no outrage? Hmmm interesting. The Germans are also close to the Russians regarding oil but no outright anger like we see towards the Turks. Seems racist to me in all honesty.

[@FlamingBasketballClub]

I'd like to see a future video topic of why Israel should be held responsible for for human rights violations.

[@HCUhardcoreUnited]

My only concern is that as more countries join, the more the tension builds. At some point that pressure will release, and when it does it's going to blow...hard.

[@charleskristiansson1296]

I enjoy your videos, Prof Ker-Lindsay but I content that US-led NATO is driven by corporate governance and huge profits from armaments. I fail to see NATO as a peace bringer. There is too much money to be made from the sale of weapons and war. Sweden and Finland may have had different historical routes to neutrailty but neutrality is still cherished by many Nordics.

[@charleskristiansson1296]

100% war is purely economic. NATO is a war machine. Moscow is equally as bad.

[@irinkamoy]

NATO better than EU I think . We see what goin on with Ukraine . It is just my opinion

[@casebarreoltt5990]

More than 200 years of neutrality (excluding, of course, a robust multinational banking history), which guaranteed the Kingdom’s security and prosperity, are now history. So why wasn’t there a referendum? Just because no one has been consulting Swedish public’s opinion on anything for a long time now. The Americans call the shots for the Swedes.

[@ultikanare2358]

If I understand correctly, since the Washington Treaty provides in Article 13 that each non-Turkey member could denounce the treaty and then be off the hook in a year, what are the practical factors that would prevent a new organization if Turkey continues to be obstinate? It seems like besides Turkey, membership is on a fast-track anyways, so does a new organization seem like a possibility given the political will that seems to exist for drastic measures across almost every NATO state? Also, how would a Turkish withdrawal from NATO (or de facto expulsion) affect the situation in Cyprus or disputes in the Aegean Sea? Since (new) NATO(+) would be obliged to defend Greece from external powers (like Turkey might be), could this lead to Western-Turkish direct conflict? Also also, if there were a new organization/treaty, do you think it's possible that its geographic boundaries would be shifted away from strictly North America and Europe? Given AUKUS, does Australia seem likely to engage, or perhaps South Korea or other regional strategic partners of the US? It seems that NATO as it stands is taking more of an interest in the Pacific region (especially Taiwan and Korea), so a new treaty might be an opportunity to geographically reorient (and possibly also the US could negotiate for Hawaii to become protected!)

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

Good points

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

Firstly I think that Turkey is a far more important country in terms of geopolitical situation to have in NATO than Finland and Sweden. Secondly I think even if Finland and Sweden join NATO, that won't change things much for Russia, because Russia wouldn't be able to attack either one of them without going to war with entire EU because of mutual defense pact of EU. There is only the matter of American nuclear missiles and bombers being located in these countries, that is highly unlikely and they won't welcome that either

[@zavi7919]

I think you’re right on all points. To my knowledge, both Sweden and Finland have stated they don’t want bases on their territory and Putin in a speech made it clear that Russia doesn’t see Finland joining as comparable to Ukraine joining.

[@gyderian9435]

Location wise I see Finland and Sweden more beneficial for NATO (if you had to choose) since otherwise 3 NATO members Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are pretty isolated, only separated by the Suwalki gap. NATO could gain the whole Baltic Sea and get very close Kola Peninsula where russia bases a lot of its equipment

[@wickstorm_records]

Finland has *900k trained reservists and joined the EU in 1995. Not 1996.

[@walrus1074]

900k reservists are incredibly optimistic, they can never mobilize that many people, only about 250k are "active reservists" the rest are "passive reservists" also logistics is a major problem to mobilize that many reservists also since the active component is very tiny, also most of the troops would be used like the "Territorial Defense Forces" of Ukraine doing ambushes and the like not really front line fighting with heavy equipment since Finland lacks materiel to equip them all with heavy weaponry.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. The reservist figure was dawn from the IISS military balance. This is usually regarded as the most authoritative source for defence capabilities. But I have to say that 900,000 does seem on the high side. Did I say 1996? Oops. Sadly, these things can creep in with lots of information and dates. (Although this is particularly embarrassing as I actually specialise on EU enlargement!)

[@wickstorm_records]

@@walrus1074 I am one of the 900 000. Reservist training every 5 years since 2011 when i did my 1 year military training. So two so far. All men I know is in the same boat.

[@wickstorm_records]

@@JamesKerLindsay It’s 900 000 men and women that have gone through the 6-12 month military service between the age of 18-60. ~280 000 of those can be mobilized in 72-hours.

[@joqqeman]

@@wickstorm_records and what of the reservists who have not trained for years or decades? The 900k is bit of an illusion.

[@gregs7562]

Bye bye Turkey. I'll take Sweden & Finland over an Islamic dictatorship any day. While we're at it we could give a heap of military aid to Greece. Just to prove a point.

[@danielpeter3834]

Türkiye should join the CSTO and BRICS.

[@123DOWNUNDER890]

@@danielpeter3834 yes it should

[@mirandapillsbury7885]

ugh why must you always transform everything into a religious point. Turkey isn't an Islamic dictotorship. Whether you like it or not it is in fact a democracy (a non functioning one but still a democracy). It is led by a tyranical leader though. Additionally, Turkey's brand of rough politics is more in line with conservatism and ultra nationilsm rather than religion. Erdogan simply invokes religious talking points but his policies and Turkey's policies as a whole are more ultra nationalist. Stop being so simple minded and stop being so rude to muslims in general for absolutely no reason at all. Finally, I'd rather we keep Turkey AND get Finland and Sweden join. Turkey is arguably one of the top 5 most important nations in NATO. They are literally the ones that fought the most in nearly all our recent wars or interventions. Gather yourself a little and THINK before you write.

[@amutah8063]

You don't know anything about NATO then. For NATO, Turkey is more valuable than 10 Swedens and 10 Finlands.

[@base3626]

It was Turkey who protected Europe from USSR back in the cold war era. Whilst Sweden and Finland didnt want to take a part to support NATO by joining. In the Cuban missile crises in 1962 US nuclear missiles were deployed in Turkey not in an European countries but yeah thanks for your appreciation. Good luck with Sweden and Finland who did nothing over the 73 years of Nato. Bye

[@benjaminTolis]

Most of the demands by Turkey have little to nothing to do with either Sweden or Finland and resemble blackmail more than anything. I surely hope the rest of the NATO alliance stands firmly and doesn’t bend a bit vis-à-vis Turkey (there are legitimate reasons why there is a weapons export ban on Turkey by most Western countries). We can’t set a precedent where all NATO parties plays by the rules except Turkey… if we did, every time a unanimous vote is needed the aggressive regime of Erdogan would exploit this newfound power for a free lunch…

[@dainomite]

I for one am looking forward to our new Nordic overlords joining NATO :p

[@Ligma-Balls-69]

Good boy 👦 👏

[@nian60]

Looks like you NATO countries will have to remove Turkey first.

[@jimmyrussl7112]

Turkey relies on NATO funding for their projects like dams and the constructions in Istanbul if turkey over plays its hand it could be viewed as a pariah in NATO like hungry or Poland

[@tvgerbil1984]

Finland lost Karelia, Salla, and Kuusamo provinces to the Soviets and these are now parts of Russia. The Finns just witness the Russians trying to do the same to Ukraine and they really have little choice but to join NATO in order to prevent the Russians from coming back for more Finnish territories. If Erdogan determines to be the obstacle, Finland can just sign mutual defense pacts with the main NATO powers and bypasses Turkey completely. There is nothing Erdogan can do with that and he won't be Turkey president forever.

[@jackholler3572]

I dont think this is about erdogan but Turkey as all the Turkish nation is bothered by the terrorist activities that are happening in their country funded by these countries. You dont have to see this as an obstacle but a condition as Turkey will also have to response in case of an attack to those countries and they have right to ask them to act as ally amd stop this ridiculous support.

[@bilic8094]

If NATO can take territory off Serbia why can't Russia do the same against Ukraine it's the same thing.

[@chairmanmeow5364]

Sweden was neutral because of ideology they didn't fight tyranny or protect neighbours in WW2. Even after WW2 they were non aligned. They are demanding that no foreign bases/nuclear weapons on Swedish land as precondition to joining NATO. Do you think they would be a useful member?

[@Kilrly]

NATO troops can train on Swedish bases though. So, although no new NATO bases would be constructed, they could still utilize Swedish ones

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great point! There is indeed a lot more to this issue. But you are right. It doesn’t look very sincere when it imposed restrictions on bases and troops. (Although I can understand the nuclear weapons.) It is interesting that Swedish public opinion has risen, but not health as much as Finland. One gets the sense that they aren’t really as into it as much as their next door neighbour.

[@parrossberg]

I suggest you do some research on what Sweden did during WW2 and why. Even if Sweden as a country stayed neutral, we still sent most of our weapons and thousands of volunteers to help Finland, thousands of volunteers to Norway and helped them train an army to help take back their land. We also decrypted german communications and shared that information with the allies. Idk if Sweden could have done much more if we had joined the war, as we had almost no army at all when the war started. I didnt know much of this until very recently and found it quite interesting to read about :) Never did like history much when I was younger

[@chairmanmeow5364]

Will do more research on Sweden. Especially now that UK and Sweden have recently signed defense treaty and military assistance.

[@parrossberg]

@@JamesKerLindsay I believe you are correct. I dont think most swedes actually want to join NATO, but we feel like we no longer have a choice. Finland joining is also very important for us, as we want to stand together with them. When it comes to military bases and nuclear weapons, I'd say it is because we already have bases here, and dont want anything to do with nuclear weapons at all. I can however see how Sweden would let NATO build up our island, Gotland, as it is very important stategically for the baltic sea.

[@robinwilson2238]

If NATO did not exist imaging what Putin would do?!? 🤔

[@tauceti8060]

Any country want to join the CSTO?

[@dainomite]

Lmao. What a joke of an alliance.

[@danielpeter3834]

@@dainomite Yeah we know we shall bring the Warsaw Pact back right ;)

[@dainomite]

@@danielpeter3834 SCO all the way!

[@zn9219]

Hungary would probably veto

[@nian60]

Hungary has little value in comparison so they would just be thrown out of NATO.

[@shayanabdullahi5073]

persian subtitle 😭😭😭😭

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Unfortunately, there are no subtitles yet. It takes a while for YT to process them. Usually best to look the next day.

[@shayanabdullahi5073]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you very much I hope you continue to put Persian subtitles in your videos

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@shayanabdullahi5073 Thanks. My pleasure! :-) Are they OK? I’m never sure how good Google Translate is. I go through the English captions carefully to give it the cleanest text to work from. But some people have said the translations are not good.

[@Nohandleentered]

Could Russia still attack Finland while the NATO accession talks are going on and only be at war with the Fins?

[@joqqeman]

Yes of course, Finland would be similar position to that of Ukraine. Some countries like the UK have given some assurances but of course the word of Boris is about as worthless as the rubbish he used to produce as a journalist.

[@nian60]

Russia could attack, but they would not be at war with only the Finns. There is the EU clause 42.7 to start with. Both Sweden and Finland have received additional defense assurances from several countries too. Very unlikely an attack from Russia would be contained to just one of the countries.

[@nian60]

@@joqqeman Wrong. Finland is in the EU, which has a mutual defense clause.

[@gyderian9435]

The UK signed a defense agreement with Finland, and the USA, France, Germany and Poland for example have promised support Edit: Norway too

[@gyderian9435]

Finland is also part of UK led Joint Expeditionary Force which includes almost all Northern European countries, it's kinda like mini-Nato readiness battleforce

[@Qwerty-qg6db]

I like how everyone in the comments is willing to give one of the militarily strongest member of NATO to Putin's hands

[@bilic8094]

Turkey is strategically way too important for NATO to even think of letting them go that's why erdogan will get what he wants or he won't approve it .

[@zdv-b3g]

It is pretty surprising. NATO is not the EU military. Since NATO's primary goal seems to be the containment of Russia, Turkey is a core member of the alliance. They are more vital in this role than either Sweden or Finland, and most other NATO members as well.

[@walrus1074]

@@zdv-b3g Imagine Turkey becomes a Russian ally and give Russia full permission to use the Turkish straits however they want. People are caught in such a frenzy they have no idea what their actions will do since a lot of people here in the comments seem really keen on trading Sweden and Finland for Turkey, not to mention Turkey has arguably the 2nd strongest Armed Forces in NATO after the US.

[@gyderian9435]

russia and turkey dont really get along that well since they both wanna be the top dog, turkey was once a superpower too and has aspirations for it

[@Leiwanderer]

@@walrus1074 What is stopping Turkey from becoming a Russian ally and giving them full access to the straits right now? Turkey already does whatever it pleases and doesn't care at all about the interests of its supposed allies. I think in the case of a Russian attack in the Baltics Turkey would be less likely to send troops to defend their allies than to capitalise on the chaos by attacking Greece.

[@simonedelgrosso4519]

NOT