Turkey has agreed to back Sweden’s application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Following prolonged negotiations, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has chosen to set aside his veto, paving the way for Sweden’s potential membership.
President Erdoğan has recommended that they support Sweden’s NATO application to his parliament. This breakthrough emerged from last-minute discussions carried out on the eve of the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. This decision ends Turkey’s nearly year-long diplomatic standoff over Sweden’s application.
According to the Turkish president’s earlier stance, he would not endorse Sweden’s bid unless the Nordic country increased its efforts to suppress exiled Kurdish activists, whom Ankara accuses of terrorism.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who had overseen the talks between Erdoğan and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in Vilnius, made the announcement.
This move indicates an important shift in international politics, particularly within the framework of NATO and Turkey’s role in the organisation. The final decision now lies with the Turkish parliament, and the implications of this decision will likely be closely monitored by other NATO members.
Latest comments coming out are that Ben Wallace is not being considered for NATO secretary general because the current US administration is unhappy about the UK’s gun hoe attitude to arming Ukraine and our preempting the US on training of Ukrainian pilots for F16.
No idea if it’s true but kind of shows who is in the driving seat all along for support for Ukraine. Not to bad for a small island that no one listens to anymore 😀
We also preempted the US on declaring that we would supply tanks.
Also Joe Biden dislikes the Brits – its that Irish thing of his!
Yes we were the first with giving Ukraine Western anti-tank misiles,tanks, long range strile misiles and MLRS. Also we have been training their troops since 2014. I think NLAW went a long way to saving the Ukraine Capital and perhaps the country. I am proud of the UK’s support to Ukraine and long may it continue.
I agree fully. Apparently we shipped the NLAWs early and they were received even before the Russians crossed the border – that’s fast support for you!
I wish we had sent more tanks though – 14 was a paltry number. I am sure we could have supplied some Warriors too.
However we have sent a mass of kit and munitions – for our size we may be the biggest pro rata contributor.
I think the tanks were all about getting the Germans and US off their butts and start supplying Leopards and M1s which they have more to spare. The Challenger 2 is a good tank but the fact its gun does not take standard NATO ammunition means it is not best suited for Ukraine. It was used to push other countries to supply. It is like our giving Storm Shadow… now the French have joined in and the US looks like it will now supply long range rockets for their MLRS. That said another 14 tanks would not have hurt us….
Rob, Thanks. None of Ukraine’s own tanks take NATO standard ammunition so I think this is a red herring. Of course we supply Ukraine with the 120mm rifled ammo for CR2, so not a problem.
I thnk M1 is not suited for Ukraine – horrendous to support from both an engineering and a logistic point of view…and they have still not arrived!!
If we’d all been a bit more gun-ho before the invasion we may have stopped Putin thinking it was worth the gamble. Not in any reckless, crazy way, but going toe to toe to face him down rather than declaring (as Biden & Boris both did) that we’d not send any forces if he did invade. Then delaying & agonizing over sending the kit UKR needed while Russians raped, killed & looted widely.
If we take the “walk softly but carry a big stick” saying, what’s the point of that big stick if you say you won’t use it if your enemy does the bad thing he threatens to do? Especially when you’ve so whittled away that stick that it’s not conidered such a threat any more.
Glad to see Sweden closer to NATO membership. Shame on Turkey for holding Sweden up so long.
I’m sure this is not the end of this, no doubt Erdogan will be back with more conditions. The guys is an absolute liar, Turkey needs to be removed ASAP along with Hungary, NATO is too important to have weak links and neither country brings sufficient strength with it to warrant the risk they pose.
Wasn’t this just a bump in the road? Time to move on. No alliance can be perfectly harmonious year in, year out.
Turkey doesn’t bring strength? “The Turkish Armed Forces is the second largest standing military force in NATO, after the U.S. Armed Forces, and the thirteenth in the world, with an estimated strength of 775,000 military and paramilitary personnel in 2022”.
They have 2,200 tanks, albeit many are old; the best are 340 Leo2, 815 upgraded M60s.
Army has 425,000 active duty, 200,000 reserves.
They also control access to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean Sea.
Problem is Turkey is physically a key strategic location.
Turkey also has the 2nd largest army in NATO. Granted it’s for their own mini-cold war with Greece (3rd largest army in NATO), but given their historical beef with Russia, they’re definitely someone we want to have “in the tent” rather than outside it.
The cracks are emerging in NATO. Turkey, a massive military force in NATO, is denied the F-35 because of it’s procurement of the highly advanced Russian made S-400 SAM system (Turkey can’t find an equivalent system in the NATO arsenal). I don’t understand how a country which is subject to CAATSA sanctions, can decide if Sweden joins NATO or not?
S- 400 isn’t highly advanced, and you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
I think it’s clear S400 is a piece of shit but it’s cheap and Turkey wanted cheap rather than effective. Remember turkey was almost at war with Russia and nearly called article 4 at its aircraft was shot down and even then the clown Erdogan went off to buy S400 and lost all Turkeys F35 work. That’s why Turkeys economy has collapsed, it has a big military on paper but it’s a territorial defence force that struggled to mount small incursions over its own boarder to Syria.
It’s semi strategic location but nothing NATO can’t replicate from Greece or Romania.
It brings very little to the modern alliance and cost much.
Exactly, you agree the cracks are emerging.
Not cracks so much as gaping chasms. NATO was built to face the Soviet Union, it’s not fit for purpose to face off against China and a loose band of failed states and autocratic leaders.
If Turkey was removed however it would solve many of the problems and set an example to others such as Hungary. Although it potentially opens up Turkey as an enemy state and ally for China although at this stage it’s hard to say that’s not what Turkey is anyway.
China is outside the Euro-Atlantic area, so NATO isn’t facing off there. Wrong to say NATO is not fit for purpose for something they don’t have a remit for.
Tell that to the PLA who daily mount cyber attacks against us.
Frank, I think the long-standing NATO rationale (security in the Euro-Atlantic area) is sound. You clearly think NATO should craft a new Charter that embraces the China threat. Wow!
So NATO would then respond to all threats in the northern hemisphere including cyber threats from China. A consequence would be NATO enlargement to all countries in the northern hemisphere?
Might an alternative just to be counter the Chinese cyber threat using just national resources?
I’m just saying that while we’re, IMO naively, trading & courting PRC investment(hopefully better aware of the threat now), they are actively attacking us in word & deed, albeit in the “Grey” zone currently & for the last decade or more.
They are pretty hostile to many of our friends & allies in east Asia etc. Gazzumping SCS reefs, bullying nations with greater claims & against international adjudication, commiting genocide on Uyghurs, brutally imposing CCP rule on Hong Kong, seeking the downfall of free democracies, seeking dicatorial rule across the world. China is a great nation, under the grip of a toxic ruling CCP. Any further expansion should be viewed with alarm & checked. Not a NATO matter. Primarily one for the regional neighbours who are thankfully well on it, the USA & probably the UK & France as free permanent members of the UN security council, possibly others too.
HMG are showing considerable interest in the region as the threat to international law, trade, human rights & stability may lead to us doing more than strong condemnation if the CCP attempts an invasion of Taiwan. Why else send the QE carrier task group through there last year?
I agree that China is doing bad things to their own people and neighbours and are fast building an ability to do power projection. They will have the capability to invade Taiwan before too long.
It truly justifies our new carriers. I think we should have built 3 and replaced the LPH HMS Ocean.
The free world’s navies and cyber experts are best placed to respond to China at the moment. I can’t see a role for our army and air force.
Then why did Turkey select it, rather than the Patriot system?
Because Erdogan is an ***hole that plays politics instead of looking out for the best interests of his country.
Unfortunately a slim majority of his country men are so backward and bigoted they go along with him.
I am sure S400 was cheaper.
Ask them. Not that you would comprehend the answer.
Badly written treaty from the 1940’s with no mechanism for review or update or removing members.
Like all political alliances and global empires, since the Roman times, they become too big and too ambitious. NATOs expansion will be it’s downfall, and the Ukraine was the start of it. Ukraine will have to concede territory to becoming closer to Europe on the US.
No the expanded counties are perhaps it’s saviour giving it renewed focus and vigour, Finland and Poland are two key examples. It’s the old guard of Turkey, France and Germany that have been principally the problem. NATO needs a way to remove countries or it always open to exploitation or simply to take non unanimous votes for action.
Its not a global empire, never has never will be. Its a military alliance, based on countries requesting membership, meeting criteria and standards. Very unlike the old Warsaw Pact me old china. Your efforts at weak trolling are getting less subtle, now old Johnskie from MK has been binned of this site for his vocal support of the Bucha murders.
Has he been removed?? I’d noticed that he/it had been getting more entrenched and aggressive in his pro Russian narrative.
Yeah, the Bucha comments were the straw that broke the camels back. :/
I see. Thanks. His Bucha comments were beneath contempt.
Damn. Missed it. 🙄
Sounds like you are describing Russia!!
…and betraying that you don’t know Roman History at least.
Rome never became “too big and too ambitious.” Roman expansion actually halted and remained stable for nearly 300 years. From the death of Augustus until the establishment of the Tetrarchy Rome only added Britain and Dacia to the Empire. The Empire was neither too big, as it managed to be stable for centuries at it’s maximum extent, nor too ambitious, as it was not defeated by attempts at conquest beyond it’s grasp. If anything the History of Rome is testiment to it’s ability to withstand repeated, and devestating shocks to it’s system and still continue to function.
Jim, I am assume you have read the North Atlantic Treaty?
Mechanism for review is at Article 12.
You are right that there is no specific provision for exclusion of a Member – this has been aired in many forums – eg. https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/
The preferred solution is to work through the problem or to do little but wait for a new Leader or Government in the countrty at odds with the Alliance.
I read the 1949 Treaty in full this afternoon – it was one of the best written Treaties I have ever read. Simple, clear, and not limited to beng a counterpoint to the USSR. It has stood the test of time and has required little amendment over the years.
What is the issue with Turkey? – that they bought S400 instead of the US Patriot – and that for a period Erdogan opposed Finland’s membership, but doesn’t now. It that enough to eject them? Many disadvantages if we lost Turkey from NATO – they bring a lot of manpower and kit – and are the strongest country on the southern flank, are a very large country and have a dominant strategic postion viz a viz Russia.
Within all organisations and alliances there is disagreement – naiive to think otherwise. Deal with the issues.
What material advantages would there be in expelling Turkey?
No cracks, not any more than were already there in regards to Turkey. In fact NATO has been strengthen physically, geographically and financially by Putins illegal invasion of Russia. Also the massive area of improvement has been in awareness, awareness in all sectors from preparedness to logistics, to platforms, to numbers, the list goes on and all thanks to Putin. To say otherwise is just disingenuous trolling.
How long, roughly, will it be before Sweden and Finland are fully integrated into NATO in terms of large scale war fighting?
I sometimes wonder if there are enough exercises of large scale that involve sea land and air forces from most if not all member states. It’s hard for me as a non military person to try and grasp the integration needed for so many nations with different languages, structures and kit to seamlessly fight, lets just say for example, Russia and Belarus.
Have we lost some of that since the end of Cold War I? Do we still have things like the 2nd and 4th Allied Tactical Air Forces? There don’t seem to be anywhere near the same number of exercises and TDYs that we saw back then.
As a start, English is the accepted universal language of NATO. Furthermore there has been a drive within the MoD to push out simplified technical English (STE) for correspondence. As STE is translated easier to other languages with less ambiguity. (Look up STE-100 for more info). Both Sweden and Finland militaries are taught English.
Sweden in particular has been conducting joint exercises with NATO for the last 30 years. Initially these were a single ship, a flight of aircraft or a single regiment. Recently in the last 10 years, these have ramped up to include all facets of the Swedish forces. With their subs often being used as the red force in maritime anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercises. Finland is new to the party. They have held a few exercise with NATO members. Just recently the UK was part of a NATO force that held an exercise in Finland.
It will be interesting to see how the dynamics change for the annual winter Norway exercises, with both Sweden and Finland bordering Norway?
I will be expecting Sweden especially to be joining the NATO live fire exercise Formidable Shield, but we could also see a Finnish corvette taking part. They will definitely be taking part in the numerous ASW exercises NATO holds. Both Finland and Sweden have a strong mine countermeasure force, again easily joining in NATO exercises. But neither really has a blue water capability, predominantly being a littoral orientated navy. Both Sweden and Finland will benefit by joining Red Flag types of exercises for their air forces. Which will allow them to take part in much larger aerial air power scenarios. Plus they will likely take part in the UK’s led EW exercises, that have become multinational.
Since Sweden and Finland announced that they would like to join NATO last year. I would expect that both countries have an observer role in NATO HQ, which will lead to an easier transition. Before they properly set up shop. They will be required to send an Army, Navy and Airforce command delegation. These will be used to map out how both Countries forces merge into NATO. It’s where they will find the massive procedural and administrative burden that comes with being a NATO member. These includes all the various NATO standards required so each member country can integrate with fellow members. For example types of fuel, data-link protocols, aircraft single point fuel connectors etc. I’d expect that both Countries already use part of NATO standardization, it will now becomes more official.
I’m sure both Country’s militaries will roll their eyes over a few issues with regards to NATO policies. But in a few years time, just like the other Baltic States, they will become a seamless part of NATO.
Finland has already been involved in exercises with other NATO members in March, April, May.https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/04/14/finland-first-nato-exercise/
Sweden too has had some exercises with NATO members despite not yet being a Member.
Full integration of course takes time.
In a lot of ways we are a lot better off than we where in the 80’s. NATO has now fought several small wars where our militaries have actually operated together, unlike during the cold war. We exercise together regularly, and maintain standing multinational battlegroups on the Eastern Front. So in terms of how well we work together I’d say we are doing pretty well.