EU Turkey will support Sweden and Finland joining NATO - Looks like they're in

Turkey agreed Tuesday to lift its opposition to Sweden and Finland joining NATO, ending an impasse that had clouded a leaders' summit opening in Madrid amid Europe's worst security crisis in decades, triggered by the war in Ukraine.

After urgent top-level talks with leaders of the three countries, alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that "we now have an agreement that paves the way for Finland and Sweden to join NATO." He called it "a historic decision."

Among its many shattering consequences, President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has prompted Sweden and Finland to abandon their long-held nonaligned status and apply to join NATO as protection against an increasingly aggressive and unpredictable Russia — which shares a long border with Finland. Under NATO treaties, an attack on any member would be considered an attack against all and trigger a military response by the entire alliance.

NATO operates by consensus, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had threatened to block the Nordic pair, insisting they change their stance on Kurdish rebel groups that Turkey considers terrorists.

After weeks of diplomacy and hours of talks on Tuesday, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö said the three leaders had signed a joint agreement to break the logjam.

Turkey said it had "got what it wanted" including "full cooperation ... in the fight against" the rebel groups.

Stoltenberg said leaders of the 30-nation alliance will issue a formal invitation to the two countries to join on Wednesday. The decision has to be ratified by all individual nations, but he said he was "absolutely confident" Finland and Sweden would become members, something that could happen within months.

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said the agreement was "good for Finland and Sweden. And it's good for NATO."

She said completing the process of membership should be done "the sooner the better."

"But there are 30 parliaments that need to approve this and you never know," Andersson told the Associated Press.

Turkey hailed Tuesday's agreement as a triumph, saying the Nordic nations had agreed to crack down on groups that Ankara deems national security threats, including the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and its Syrian extension. It said they also agreed "not to impose embargo restrictions in the field of defense industry" on Turkey and to take "concrete steps on the extradition of terrorist criminals."

Turkey has demanded that Finland and Sweden extradite wanted individuals and lift arms restrictions imposed after Turkey's 2019 military incursion into northeast Syria.

Turkey, in turn, agreed "to support at the 2022 Madrid Summit the invitation of Finland and Sweden to become members of NATO."

Details of exactly what was agreed were unclear. Amineh Kakabaveh, an independent Swedish lawmaker of Kurdish origin whose support the government depends on for a majority in Parliament, said it was "worrisome that Sweden isn't revealing what promises it has given Erdogan."

Andersson dismissed suggestions Sweden and Finland had conceded too much.

Asked if the Swedish public will see the agreement as a concession on issues like extraditions of Kurdish militants regarded by Ankara as terrorists, Andersson said "they will see that this is good for the security of Sweden."

U.S. President Joe Biden congratulated the three nations on taking a "crucial step."

Amid speculation about a U.S. role in ending the deadlock, a senior administration official said Washington did not offer any concessions to Turkey to coax it to accept a deal. But the official said the U.S. played a crucial role in helping bring the two parties closer together, and Biden spoke with Erdogan Tuesday morning at the behest of Sweden and Finland to help encourage the talks.

The agreement came at the opening of a crucial summit, dominated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that will set the course of the alliance for the coming years. The summit was kicking off with a leaders' dinner hosted by Spain's King Felipe VI at the 18th-century Royal Palace of Madrid.

Top of the agenda in meetings Wednesday and Thursday is strengthening defenses against Russia, and supporting Ukraine.

Moscow's invasion on Feb. 24 shook European security and brought shelling of cities and bloody ground battles back to the continent. NATO, which had begun to turn its focus to terrorism and other non-state threats, has had to confront an adversarial Russia once again.

Biden said NATO was "as united and galvanized as I think we have ever been."

A Russian missile strike Monday on a shopping mall in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk was a grim reminder of the war's horrors. Some saw the timing, as Group of Seven leaders met in Germany and just ahead of the NATO gathering, as a message from Moscow.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is due to address NATO leaders by video on Wednesday, called the strike on the mall a "terrorist" act.

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko traveled to Madrid to urge the alliance to provide his country with "whatever it takes" to stop the war.

"Wake up, guys. This is happening now. You are going to be next, this is going to be knocking on your door just in the blink of an eye," Klitschko told reporters at the summit venue.

Stoltenberg said the meeting would chart a blueprint for the alliance "in a more dangerous and unpredictable world" — and that meant "we have to invest more in our defense," Stoltenberg said. Just nine of NATO's 30 members meet the organization's target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense. Spain, which is hosting the summit, spends just half that.

Stoltenberg said Monday that NATO allies will agree at the summit to increase the strength of the alliance's rapid reaction force nearly eightfold, from 40,000 to 300,000 troops. The troops will be based in their home nations, but dedicated to specific countries on NATO's eastern flank, where the alliance plans to build up stocks of equipment and ammunition.

Beneath the surface, there are tensions within NATO over how the war will end and what, if any, concessions Ukraine should make to end the fighting.

There are also differences on how hard a line to take on China in NATO's new Strategic Concept — its once-a-decade set of priorities and goals. The last document, published in 2010, didn't mention China at all.

The new concept is expected to set out NATO's approach on issues from cybersecurity to climate change — and the growing economic and military reach of China, and the rising importance and power of the Indo-Pacific region. For the first time, the leaders of Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand are attending the summit as guests.

Some European members are wary of the tough U.S. line on Beijing and don't want China cast as an opponent.

In the Strategic Concept, NATO is set to declare Russia its number one threat.

Russia's state space agency, Roscosmos marked the summit's opening by releasing satellite images and coordinates of the Madrid conference hall where it is being held, along with those of the White House, the Pentagon and the government headquarters in London, Paris and Berlin.

The agency said NATO was set to declare Russia an enemy at the summit, adding that it was publishing precise coordinates "just in case."

Article (Archive)
 
I'm not sure what you are saying here? That the SEALS are cowards because they won't' get the jab? That the folks willing to throw away their careers over boldly autonomy are somehow not willing to die for their country? I think you are backwards in this, these guys are not willing to give on something they feel is unhelpful at best, and dangerous at the worst. They refuse to take something they don't feel is necessary. It's not a vaccine at all, vaccines immunize you, this fucking "vaccine" is anything but.

You have no goddamn clue what you are talking about.
"Noooooooooo how dare you? They absolutely are not cowards, they're just retarded!"
 
"Noooooooooo how dare you? They absolutely are not cowards, they're just retarded!"
Have a seat over there.
12.png
 
"Noooooooooo how dare you? They absolutely are not cowards, they're just retarded!"
All vaccines are the same, how dare you not take this perfect vaccine and the 12 boosters. Trying to explain a nuanced take to you is like trying to explain physics to a cat.

You sound like baked alaska.
 
A few observations on the debate in this thread.

a) Brutalisation absolutely can work, but you need to go to genocide levels sometimes (e.g. herero wars, boer wars).

b) Afghanistan was a live-fire exercise for the US forces first, an MIC profit operation second. A CIA drugs operation third. Nation-building didn't really matter. Soon the US will find another destabilised area where they can have some low-level conflict which keeps (parts of) the forces sharp.

c) nation-building can absolutely work, but the people in charge need to be pragmatic and know the lay of the land. Compare the permanent settlement and other colonial administrations by the EIC to the ideologically driven attempts in Afghanistan by the soviets and the US and you'll see the differences. An essential part of it is the recruitment of local elites into the administration-building scheme. Because of ideology, both the US and the soviets tried to drive local tribal elites out. They would have had far more success if they tried the confederal-tribal state way then the modern nation-state method.
 
b) Afghanistan was a live-fire exercise for the US forces first, an MIC profit operation second. A CIA drugs operation third. Nation-building didn't really matter. Soon the US will find another destabilised area where they can have some low-level conflict which keeps (parts of) the forces sharp.
Ground forces are in top shape in that regard. What's needed is a conflict with beaches, so the navy can sharpen their teeth a little and the Marines can be let out for some exercise.
 
Didn't the British do something like that in southeast Asia the country's name escapes me right now
Malaya, now the lion's share of Malaysia, it was mentioned earlier in the thread. Other campaigns have also worked like the surge in Iraq (later pissed away by their political leadership but with the governing structure still intact), Russia crushing the post-WWII Ukrainian partisans, the US in the 1900s-era Philippines, pretty much every failed rebellion in history, etc.
 
Malaya, now the lion's share of Malaysia, it was mentioned earlier in the thread. Other campaigns have also worked like the surge in Iraq (later pissed away by their political leadership but with the governing structure still intact), Russia crushing the post-WWII Ukrainian partisans, the US in the 1900s-era Philippines, pretty much every failed rebellion in history, etc.
Although it should be noted the malayan insurgents were an unpopular minority which definitely made things easier for the British
 
You have no idea as to American military capabilities. We fight using all arms. We have four of the five largest air forces in the world, and no air force is more capable than the U.S. Air Force.. The US Navy roams all the oceans and seas. We have world-wide power projection abilities. If you have noticed, for example, for some reason weapons being supplied to Ukraine get there fairly quickly. We have an entire Transportation Command, headed by a four-star general, that makes sure stuff and people get where they are supposed to go. We can carry out amphibious assaults just about anywhere. The US military is by no means perfect, but it would do quite well against any other modern military.
Up until that very last sentence, that was an excellent Villain monologue.
 
I find it amusing that what ended Sweden's neutrality was not Hitler and his taking over their neighbors and all of Europe, but fucking Putin invading some 3rd world country
 
Última edición:
In reality I started pro-ukie mainly because they were the attacked but thanks to the happenings thread I quickly came to realize the whole shitshow was far more complex than that. No one is even close to innocent in the whole thing and I am somewhat concerned the FSB staged the chechen apartment bombings to bring Putin to power. But that is far from the only shady incident that has happened what with Biden and Hunter and all the sex trafficking and NATO promising not to expand and on and on. I am no geopolitical expert so I have no clue how this plays out but provoking continued hostility between the US and the East sure seems like a failing strategy.
 
In reality I started pro-ukie mainly because they were the attacked but thanks to the happenings thread I quickly came to realize the whole shitshow was far more complex than that. No one is even close to innocent in the whole thing and I am somewhat concerned the FSB staged the chechen apartment bombings to bring Putin to power. But that is far from the only shady incident that has happened what with Biden and Hunter and all the sex trafficking and NATO promising not to expand and on and on. I am no geopolitical expert so I have no clue how this plays out but provoking continued hostility between the US and the East sure seems like a failing strategy.

It's like Uncle Sam through NATO and Putler feed off each other.

And this was years after there was an attempt by Russia to join NATO after the USSR fell and they were docile and more open to American investors and corporations.

NATO needs a reason to survive the post fall of the USSR, since the Warsaw Pact is gone, to justify funding. Putler was suffering at home from the sanctions in 2014 for taking Crimea as well as struggling to keep their sphere of influence somewhat intact in the black sea. The Maidan Coup probably saved both sides in the long run. Zelensky is probably very happy having more power than ever before while hohol nazis are being killed by the Russians, that increases his power even more since they don't like Z-man.

Trump was tough on both Russia and NATO, even though it seemed like he was willing to disband it if he had his way, and looking into Ukraine as well. The end result was being called a Russian stooge for not being gung-ho like the shitlibs are in wanting to nuke Russia, when it was well known the Biden's and other big time politicians had corrupt dealings in both Ukraine and some Russian oligarchs.
 
Yeah it is a joke if you think Biden cares about the Ukrainian people or Putin’s autocratic rule for any reason other than an agenda. Same with most media, the MIC, NATO, etc. I may not like Trump but at least he walked to his own rhythm. And he outwitted so many establishment people in even getting elected.
 
You have no idea as to American military capabilities. We fight using all arms. We have four of the five largest air forces in the world, and no air force is more capable than the U.S. Air Force.. The US Navy roams all the oceans and seas. We have world-wide power projection abilities. If you have noticed, for example, for some reason weapons being supplied to Ukraine get there fairly quickly. We have an entire Transportation Command, headed by a four-star general, that makes sure stuff and people get where they are supposed to go. We can carry out amphibious assaults just about anywhere. The US military is by no means perfect, but it would do quite well against any other modern military.
Uncle Joseph i think you're cool, but you're starting to sound like the navy seal copypasta man
 
Uncle Joseph i think you're cool, but you're starting to sound like the navy seal copypasta man
No. I actually served, unlike most here. Reached senior officer rank and have a knowledge of our operations and capabilities. Can look up things. Everything I stated is the truth. The Russians wish they could fight the way we do. They'd have loved to have had air supremacy over all Ukraine, but have had to settle for local air superiority over certain places. There's a reason Russian strategic bombers aren't carpet-bombing Kyiv, Kharkiv, etc. - they fear Uke air/air defense. Russian bombers stay over Russia, basically, and fire off cruise missiles. Russian power projection and logistics have been proven to be shit, where we're flying weapons/supplies all the way from the USA, no sweat. The USA has about eleven carriers, each with a carrier air wing, and we know how to use them. The Russians have one, which must be accompanied by an ocean-going tug. We have Marine Expeditionary Units that can land just about anywhere. Haven't heard of the Russians carrying out any amphibious landings in this war. There's more, but you catch my drift.

The only thing that keeps Russia a power to be reckoned with are their nuclear strike forces.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo