Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said Sunday that Turkey has made demands for Sweden that it cannot fulfill as part of Ankara’s conditions for the Nordic nation to join NATO.
“Turkey confirms that we have done what we said we would do. But they also say that they want things that we can’t and won’t give them. So the decision is now with Turkey,” said Kristersson, who was sworn in as prime minister in October.
Sweden and Finland signed a deal with Turkey to join NATO last June, but Turkey’s parliament still hasn’t approved their membership. Ankara says its main problem with the two countries is their alleged support for the PKK, a Kurdish militant group Turkey, the US, and the EU consider a terrorist organization.
Turkey is seeking the extradition of suspected PKK members and other individuals from Sweden, but so far, Stockholm has only extradited one person. Sweden’s supreme court also blocked the extradition of a Turkish journalist wanted by Ankara for his alleged role in a failed coup. Kristersson said that Sweden was fulfilling the deal it signed with Turkey but said it has to follow deportation laws.
Turkey appears to have more demands of Stockholm, but Sweden and Finland have said that their memberships are linked and that they would only join together. “Finland is not in such a rush to join Nato that we can’t wait until Sweden gets the green light,” Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said Sunday.
Internal Turkish politics could be at play in Ankara’s delay, as Turkey’s next presidential election will be held in June. Western officials have said they expect Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to delay approving Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids for several more months to get as many concessions as possible before the election.
Hungary is the only other NATO member that has yet to approve of Sweden and Finland joining the alliance, but the Hungarian parliament is expected to vote on the issue in the coming weeks. The two Nordic nations joining NATO will raise tensions in the region with Moscow as Finland shares an over 800-mile border with Russia.
This could be a bit tricky with NATO… I have no desire to aggravate the Russian bear…
Putin has said that them joining is not a problem to Russia.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/putin-explains-how-finland-sweden-membership-in-nato-different-from-ukraines/2627019
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220629-live-ukraine-war-to-take-centrestage-at-crucial-nato-summit
sweden has lasted all this time without jumping in the NATO boat – why would they now be in a hurry to join
More than likely because the population of Sweden fear that the position of armed neutrality is no longer a viable one – a point driven home to them by Putin’s attack on Ukraine, thereby showing that he is less trustworthy than the Soviets and less constrained by facing even a very significantly armed enemy.
Yes, uniform and consistent propaganda can do wonders on a country’s population. They can believe things that are utter and complete nonsense and in fact counter productive in terms of real security risk out of sheer panic.
So when do you propose this propaganda started? Because the change in the stance of the Swedes coincided with the Russian invasion – like the change in the Danish electorate towards EU’s defense initiative.
In 2021 we were against the EU defense collaboration by April 2022 the picture had changed completely – there were very little time to present us with a uniform and consistent propaganda – different from what clearly did not work up until Putin invaded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Danish_European_Union_opt-out_referendum
So by April the last of the parties that had argued against Denmark being in NATO and Denmark participating in the EU defense collaboration reflecting on their own voter polls decided to change their stance giving up on resisting both acknowledging that there was no current alternative to either.
I’m just wondering what kind of propaganda you think we are exposed to in Europe!?
You’re exposed to the kind of propaganda that does not distinguish between a border and security war vital to the national security of the Russian people that they warned the west about for thirty years versus some nonsense fear of an expanding menace out of the east, bent on conquering you. That’s what.
Your MIC and MSM are doing a number on you, for great benefits for themselves, meanwhile putting you higher at risk of utter distruction. Good luck.
By the way, I love Denmark and the Danish people …Copenhagen is a great old town. And a European security structure, ditching NATO, would be a fantastic idea.
Well anyone who had that idea have had to put it out of their mind as long as Russia is governed by Putin and so far from a proper democracy.
You really are silly. But your deliberate avoidance of the history post cold war is telling and pathetic.
You’re a fan, no more, for the western POV and a victim of western propaganda.
Proxy wars are where it has been at since Korea. Get with the program.
Can you point out what parts of the history post cold war it is that you think I’m avoiding – or will you just stick to vague accusations?
I happen to believe that Putin changed the game, I never had much fear that the Soviets would invade neither Sweden nor any NATO country – not so sure that agrees with the general western PoV or propaganda.
Not sure how you see the idea that the Russians are now fighting a proxy for what they wanted to fight in Ukraine changes much in this context.
You really are silly. But your deliberate avoidance of the history post cold war is telling and pathetic.
You’re a fan, no more, for the western POV and a victim of western propaganda.
Proxy wars are where it has been at since Korea. Get with the program.
So explain why the war happened right now – if this was an issue for 30 odd years;
1) why did NATO not exploit the ultimate period of Russian weakness 1991-93
2) why was NATO a threat that has to be solved in 2022 when Ukraine could not join
3) why was a war with a Ukraine with lower levels of conflict in the Donbas then needed
Few believed in the threat from an expanding menace out of the east, bent on conquering us in 2021 – practically none in 2013. Putin’s actions spoke louder than any propaganda, which had not convinced a majority in Denmark and very far from a majority in Sweden until 2022.
I find the idea that it was a propaganda machine very unconvincing as that machine had been running the same message since 1999 if not earlier (i.e. that Russia was the new Soviet threat) and managed to convince very few in Denmark or Sweden – what changed this was the SMO.
As for the MIC they stand to gain more from a peace settlement and the threat of the Russians will be demonstrably smaller for the Finns and the Swedes inside NATO – only if the Russians want a collective suicide will they actually attack NATO.
My friend, you see the trees, but not the forest … 🙂
Why now? Because Russia hoped against hope for many years that the Europeans would come to their senses and realize that their future lay with cheap energy and other partnerships with the east and not the mil-ind-sec slavery to USUK. But he realized last year in those last ditch meetings with Scholtz and Macron that there was no hope in EU, that the leadership of Europe was fully coopted and corrupted. And so he had to make a move before Ukraine was built up to be even more a fortified Sparta than it has been since 2014.
As for why NATO did not attack Russia when the latter was weak, NATO does not plan on attacking Russia forthright … that would destroy the world. No, NATO plans on dismembering Russia by all the non-military tools it has in its arsenal. To that end, Ukraine has been set up as a tool of influence and to weaken Russia.
As I said, good luck to you and us all … hopefully this will not end in Armageddon and we will live to shake our heads at the foolishness.
A very inconsistent timing then, the UK has just left EU, if he wanted to see what way the Europeans would go – why not wait just a few more years to let the rift between UK and EU develop?
Those meetings were not held until the build up to the SMO was very much a fact and he had thus already scared the EU back into the US fold – if you are thinking this is how it was played then you are accusing Putin of being a very poor strategist.
So NATO actually was not a security threat at all – it was a threat to Russia’s position to bully its neighbors (and before anyone gets any ideas – yes the US bullies its neighbors from time to time too – see Trump and Mexico for the most recent example).
I have some faith in the Russians they are neither as stupid nor as evil as many wants to portray them to be.
“why was NATO a threat that has to be solved in 2022 when Ukraine could not join”
“could not join”? As discussed previously, until Z’s statement, it was not known – nor acknowledged by the US govt – that Ukraine “could not join” – not known that NATO’s ‘future admission’ statement – and the US and NATO’s repeated declarations that Ukraine would, in the future, join NATO – hid some NATO members’ “no” vote on admission.
Rather: US/NATO statements, Ukraine statements, making Ukraine an ‘enhanced opportunity partner,’ including Ukraine in annual NATO military exercises, and filling up Ukraine w/US/NATO personnel and weaponry all supported the expectation that Ukraine was moving toward membership.
Believe it was known Ukraine “could not join” before Z blabbed? Cite one official or news statement saying that before Z spilled the beans.
In fact, the US/NATO official position is still that Ukraine will join.
The could not join is a valid statement as long as Ukraine has a border conflict no country can join while it has an ongoing conflict – if you leave out the vital parts of the argument you are setting up a strawman. So no Ukraine could not join as things were before it had ended its conflict with Russia over Crimea.
Yes that is entirely as it should be – but a very far cry from Ukraine becoming a member while having a border conflict.
Ukraine without a border conflict can and likely will join NATO – you seem to think that I have stated that Ukraine could never join NATO (which Putin wanted NATO to say) that is not what I said, Ukraine can in the future join, but only a Ukraine which is democratic and at peace with its neighbors.
As indeed it should be – subject to the conditions for joining (i.e. no ongoing conflicts and democracy).
1/ Misunderstood you to be saying, ‘Why did Russia invade when Ukraine could never be a member?’ – on the assumption it was common knowledge that Z said he was told Ukraine would never be a member.
2/ “Ukraine without a border conflict can and likely will join NATO”
Post-Russian invasion, Z asked NATO for a straightforward answer to the question of whether Ukraine would ever be admitted to NATO. Just tell us ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ he pleaded.
Zelensky has stated that NATO answered flatly, ‘No.’
Not, ‘not now.’
Not, ‘we don’t know yet.’
Not, ‘we’re working on it.’
Not, ‘maybe in another 14 years.’
Not, ‘When there’s no border war.’
Not, ‘After you fix yr corruption prob.’
Not, ‘After Russia leaves.’
Just ‘no’ – although, Z said, he was also told that, at the same time, NATO’s public-facing position would be that ‘the door was open.’
It appears you were not aware of Z’s statement.
Do you have a source for him being told this, because all I have heard is that he was told this conditionally – as in on account of the way things were.
Yes without far more details it is very difficult to say what was the basis for the flat no.
No I am not aware that this is NATO’s position, nor am I sure it is officially known that this is NATO’s position – it may be what Zelenskyy has said (I do not follow closely everything he says – nor am I sure we should take his word for it or anything before we know what his incentives are to speak on the matter.
But if true then it would only make it even clearer that Russian fears of Ukraine joining NATO were even less well founded.
1/ a/ Below: first thing searches turned up – but it has been written about in more detail (including on these pages):
“Zelensky said he had previously appealed to NATO to be told clearly whether Ukraine could join the alliance. ‘The response was very clear, you’re not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open,’ he said.
“Zelensky thanked the NATO countries who are supporting Ukraine, however, he made a point to note that not all member states support Ukraine’s admittance into the alliance, though he declined to name specific countries.”
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/20/zelensky-putin-negotiations
b/ See also “Zelensky Slams Merkel and Sarkozy for Denying Ukraine a Path to NATO”
from Z address: “The optimistic diplomatic formulations claiming that Ukraine had a chance to become a member of NATO, in 2008, hid a refusal to accept Ukraine into the alliance.” [emphasis added]
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000008287568/ukraine-nato-merkel-sarkozy-russia.html?searchResultPosition=2
2/ I am frankly not surprised you missed it – at the time, I noticed that many short news accounts avoided Z’s exact words on the direct ‘no,’ and then the topic was soon conflated w/Z/P’s March negotiations in which he said he had “cooled on” and was prepared to give up future NATO membership.
Thus news coverage fostered yr understanding…
3/ …But why? I believe a combo of things: mainstream news, wanting an upbeat view of NATO unity, soft pedaled the division revealed; and – going w/the US/NATO position Z says NATO told him – news adopted the US/NATO’s ‘public facing,’ official position that ‘the door was open’…as though the ‘quiet part out loud’ part had never been said at all.
4/ Until Z’s statements – which I’ll guess were not sanctioned by the US/NATO, and which surely formed an unwelcome revelation by an angry, disabused Z who impolitically went public w/having been ‘led up the primrose path’ – I have found no discussion of U’s NATO membership suggesting the Bucharest ‘future membership’ language was the public face of a flat-out “refusal” Z’s account suggests it was.
I’m not reading the complete refusal of a potential future Ukrainian NATO membership that you seem to be reading from any of the links you have provided. I am reading a Ukrainian anger at being denied a path to NATO membership in 2008 – a different thing from saying that they could never become a member.
I’m not saying that they have not stated this, just that I do not see this stated – I am also a bit confused as to why they would state this to Ukraine and deny to the Russians that they would guarantee that Ukraine would not become a member – kind of like making both sides mad.
So the way I see it the Bucharest meeting confirmed that Ukraine was always very unlikely to join NATO, but did not rule it out completely, and the one condition that might (but by no means for sure) lead to a Ukrainian membership is the kind of SMO Putin decided to do in Ukraine.
The reasoning for this being that if (and I stress if) Russia is forced to vacate Ukrainian territory and sign a peace agreement akin to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the current NATO members may be convinced that the only way to make the peace a lasting one would be to include Ukraine in NATO – will they do so, not likely while Orban is the leader in Hungary or Erdogan in Turkey.
“I am also a bit confused as to why they would state this to Ukraine and deny to the Russians that they would guarantee that Ukraine would not become a member”
That’s exactly how any club behaves. Even if Country Club A would never, ever, ever let Rodney Dangerfield join, its members will tell Country Club B to go f*ck itself if Country Club B tries to tell them they can’t let Rodney Dangerfield join.
That is true, however if the consequence is that country B invades country A, they perhaps would have provided country B with the minutes of the meeting of predating country B’s demands, where they ruled out country A ever joining. In this way they would avoid looking like they allowed country B dictating anything to them while fulfilling country B’s demand.
I think they would have done this, only I think that the refusal of country A was so hedged as to be without value to Putin i.e. that it was not a plain statement that Ukraine could never join no matter the circumstances. The Russians being wise to western double speak would not take anything less than crystal clear assurance hence the problem.
Either this is what actually happened in Bucharest and what has been communicated to Zelenskyy later or NATO has changed the never to be a conditional never as in a sometime in the future. Or to put it in different words, if my life depended on Ukraine never joining NATO I would not have trusted the Bucharest words.
https://www.ft.com/content/0bc9f0ae-95da-4add-8992-36c482db159a
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nato-commits-future-ukraine-membership-drums-aid-rcna59112
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/nine-nato-allies-back-ukraines-path-to-membership/
Conversely if my life depended on Ukraine joining NATO I would not trust these declarations and sleep soundly.
“I’m not reading the complete refusal of a potential future Ukrainian NATO membership from any of the links…I am reading a Ukrainian anger at being denied a path to NATO membership in 2008 – a different thing from saying that they could never become a member.”
1/ Not in “any of the links”? Where do you “read” that in the first link?:
“Zelensky said he had previously appealed to NATO to be told clearly whether Ukraine could join the alliance. ‘The response was very clear, you’re not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open,’ he said.” [emphasis added]
2/ You are, naturally, welcome to develop an argument – in which the evidence of “the links” supports yr claim (“reading”) – any time you wish…
…in which case you might want to consider the following also, where not only Z. says – again – he was told U will not be admitted to NATO (with no ‘not right now’ qualifiers), but the journalist takes ‘Z says U will not be admitted to NATO’ as Z’s main idea:
“Ukraine’s President…has accepted that his country will not become a member of NATO, one of the demands made by Russia before it invaded.
“At a meeting of the leaders of the U.K. Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) in London…Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would not happen.
“‘For years we’ve heard the opposite, open doors, However, it is not [‘not open’ or ‘not the case’ or ‘not true’]…Our people understand this, and we are beginning to count on our own strength,’ he added. [emphasis added]
[Note: Z describes clearly his changed understanding: contrary to Z’s previous, longstanding, 2008-based understanding – that the ‘door was open’ – Z states that he now “realizes” the door is not open to Ukraine – ie, not “open” as a future possibility.]
“Media outlet Nexta quoted Zelensky as saying: ‘We realized that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. We understand this, we are an adequate people….Kyiv needs new formats of interaction with the West and separate security’…. [emphasis added]
[NOTE: Kyiv therefore – because it now “realizes” it “will not become a member of NATO” – now needs alternative, “separate,” non-NATO “security.”]
“Last week, Zelensky told ABC News that he had ‘cooled down’ on Ukraine’s bid to join the alliance…He said this came ‘after we understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine.'” [emphasis added]
https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-nato-russia-putin-war-ukraine-1688145
I’m fine with members having told Zelenskyy that Ukraine could never join NATO – I simply do not take Zelenskyy’s word for it, and I wonder why neither NATO nor Zelenskyy bothered to tell Putin that this was already NATO policy and instead told him the opposite.
To try and bait him into making poor decisions.
It worked.
That would have been a possible perhaps even likely strategy had the US been at a moment well suited for taking the potential fallout – with the Afghan debacle I kind of doubt that this was the case – also the US (as many others) clearly did not expect the Ukrainians to last.
Zelenskyy was to put it mildly not a likely candidate for a great wartime leader, he was very unpopular and Ukraine not well prepared for the kind of conflict that was thrust upon them. Had this been a ploy to get Putin stuck in Ukraine as he ended up being, the US would likely have been more anxious to make sure that Kherson did not fall – i.e. secure that the Ukrainians were better prepared to blow the bridges to Crimea and the bridges across the Dnieper near Kherson.
This did not look like a US baiting operation to me, if so it was one very, very risky one. There is as you point out a lot of reasons to expect that the Ukrainians will be unable to oust the Russians, if that is the case and if Europe does not want to keep up the sanctions that puts the US-Taiwan ties in great danger – are you so sure that would gamble that for the chance of weakening Russia (an already diminishing threat)?
1/ “I’m fine with members having told Zelenskyy that Ukraine could never join NATO”
…unclear to me what you mean by “fine with”…
2/ “I simply do not take Zelenskyy’s word for it”
Well…one is always free to believe or disbelieve what one likes…though – in normative discourse – on the basis of evidence-based reasons…
3/ “I wonder why neither NATO nor Zelenskyy bothered to tell Putin that this was already NATO policy and instead told him the opposite.”
a/ Re Z: Z did “tell Putin…this.”
Going from memory, Z’s public claims re what NATO told him immediately preceded and overlapped with Ukraine’s March negotiated settlement discussions with Russia.
I imagine you can readily see how it would serve Z’s political interests – both with Ukraine and with Russia – to ‘go public’ with what NATO said as he was formally giving up NATO to settle with an invading enemy…
btw – note here that no US or NATO official that I am aware of, denied it said what Z stated NATO said – though I do recall Stoltenberg subsequently admitting – independent of Z’s comments – that NATO did not have a consensus on Ukraine admission.
b/ Re “I wonder why…NATO [did not] bothe[r] to tell Putin that this was already NATO policy and instead told him the opposite”:
But this is a very good question.
Indeed, why would the US have made Ukraine an enhanced opportunity partner, included Ukraine in NATO military exercises, repeatedly asserted that it was not a question of ‘whether,’ but ‘when’…
…despite private knowledge that the 2008 Bucharest statement “hid” an absolute “refusal” (Z’s words)…
…and despite knowing full well that – as predicted and warned by numerous US Cold Warriors – this strongly risked exactly the brutal, illegal Russian reaction that occurred?
1) I do not have an issue with them saying so – they have not made it official NATO policy so it is just words.
2) It is not that I believe that he was lying, just that like the promise not to have new eastern countries joining NATO, any verbal ‘agreement/utterance’ can and often is subject to change.
3) a) did not know that he did, am not surprised if Putin would not accept Zelenskyy’s word for it.
3) b) this is why I’m sure that Putin did not want to trust NATO until it was a signed agreement with NATO or official NATO policy.
1/ “they have not made it official NATO policy so it is just words.”
Yes.
2/ “It is not that I believe that he was lying, just that like the promise not to have new eastern countries joining NATO, any verbal ‘agreement/utterance’ can and often is subject to change.”
Yes, indeed.
3/ “not surprised if Putin would not accept Zelenskyy’s word for it.”
Dunno if that was it. Each side blames the other for collapse of tentative deal. As reported on these pages, Ukraine news reported Johnson’s sudden April visit, with him saying even if Kyiv was ready for a peace deal, U’s western backers weren’t – a stance supported by later Johnson remarks.
https://news.antiwar.com/2022/08/31/report-russia-ukraine-tentatively-agreed-on-peace-deal-in-april/
4/ “this is why I’m sure that Putin did not want to trust NATO until it was a signed agreement with NATO or official NATO policy.”
Yes, an idea that periodically pops up in news – likely it is a truism of US-Russian diplomacy: for Russia, only formal US agreements carry weight…arguably making J’s proxy thumbs down a deal breaker…
e.g. – Re likely consequences of the US’s anti-negotiating stance:
“Samuel Charap, a former U.S. State Department official and a Russia analyst with the Rand Corporation, said the United States has not prioritized diplomacy over economic and military pressure against Mr. Putin.
“’I assume that’s because up to this point they think it’s a dead end, and there’s no convincing the Russians to change their immediate war aims,’ Mr. Charap said, warning that the approach could limit the possibilities for a diplomatic endgame. ‘In Putin’s view, the president of the United States is the only interlocutor who matters.’” [emphasis added]
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/world/europe/ukraine-russia-cease-fire-talks.html?searchResultPosition=1
The Johnson visit was after the war had broken out, I were under the impression that we were debating why it broke out not why it continued. What ever Johnson said to Zelenskyy, the only thing that would really change the ‘game’ is that Zelenskyy could not make a peace with Russia that would end sanctions. I.e. just like in Afghanistan the US/west cannot force people who do not want to fight to do so, but they can keep sanctions up.
Not sure that there is a diplomatic solution to the conflict between the western demand for lifting the sanctions (Russia has to leave all of Ukraine incl. Crimea) and Putin’s position that the Ukrainians have to accept territorial losses.
3/ Now, on the matter of Charap and yr remark: well no one can know for certain whether a “diplomatic solution” is possible…but…:
a/ as Charap (and your comments on non-US NATO deals) suggested, US rejection of diplomacy will inhibit any possible “solution;” and
b/ the ‘no-negotiation-that’s-up-to-Ukraine’ position is frankly disingenuous…especially, when the West ‘weighed in’ with a ‘no dice’ when a tentative settlement was in the offing!
c/ note btw that Charap’s mainstream-liberal-think-tank comment came early in the war – before ‘only Ukraine can negotiate’ became the US’s official justification for rejecting diplomacy w/Russia. So i.e. the rejection of diplomacy may be presumed to have reasons other than the ‘that’s U’s prerogative’ justification.
I do not believe that there is any way that the European powers could compromise on this, as in there is no way that EU will survive if some (the Germans, Italians and possibly the French) tried to end sanctions on Russia – I also think (though I’m less sure) that the US would be very reluctant to lift sanctions and basically do a Munich on Ukraine.
It would be political suicide in many of the EU countries to argue such a solution – so I simply do not see the west engaging in negotiations with Russia with the purpose of a compromise on Ukraine – I may not have made this sufficiently clear here.
That is part of why the Only Ukraine can negotiate’ came about as I see it – no one wants to be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21’st century.
1/ “The Johnson visit was after the war had broken out, I were under the impression that we were debating why it broke out not why it continued. ”
Hm…er…but I was responding to your remark on P’s presumed refusal to accept Ukraine’s ‘no-NATO’ settlement offer…
“not surprised if Putin would not accept Zelenskyy’s word for it.”
…where I thought yr point was, ‘But because the NATO offer was from Ukraine, not the US, it is “no surprise” Russia rejected the tentative settlement plan’…as a result of which – I thought you were implying – the “war continued”…
…leading to my comment that P’s distrust of a non-NATO-sanctioned deal may not have been the only factor, given Johnson’s message – which was in early April, when the tentative settlement was still on the table.
2/ And also, btw, leading to my Charap ‘US the only interlocutor Russia takes seriously’ quote – the point being J’s April visit, presumably seen as US proxy position – may also be presumed to have influenced P’s distrust in a purely-with-Ukraine deal.
So in other words, I was simply responding to yr seeming ‘why the deal failed’ comment, saying Russia’s presumed rejection may have been multi-causal.
So I thought our thinking on this matter was at least broadly congruent.
If it was to work it would have had to be before the war – as I understood the issue NATO had according to you refused any future Ukrainian NATO member ship well before the war and Putin’s demand was also pre war – once war was on non NATO membership was not going to be enough. Moreover by then Putin would likely have wanted sanctions to be lifted – a thing that was not going to happen as long as Russia had any parts of Ukraine occupied.
There was no possibility for a deal with the west – the simple underlying issue being that rewarding a war of territorial conquest is not going to happen – doing so will throw Taiwan under the bus.
The only point where NATO could have achieved anything was in December 2021, if they had responded to Putin’s demand that Ukraine not join NATO by stating that this was already NATO policy and had been so since Bucharest.
That would have been a concession that was not a concession (so acceptable to NATO) and it would have fulfilled Putin’s demand on that issue.
Notes on Sweden/Finland/NATO
1/ The Nordic countries’ relationship w/NATO increased throughout the 1990s, including ‘enhanced opportunity partner’ membership, participation in military ‘peacekeeping’ actions, and major military exercises. There is surely an internal politics to this – guessing between Social Democrat and conservative parties – that we don’t know.
2/ In Sweden there are major historical political fissures between militaristic and anti-militaristic forces – nonaligned status and criticism of US action vs major weapons production.
3/ I believe I have read that conservative-party-led NATO debate in their parliaments long preceded the invasion – despite, until recently, major polled support for staying out of NATO.
4/ I don’t doubt pro-NATO forces ignore the vastly different security issues of Ukraine v the Nordic countries; at the same time, calls for NATO membership have necessarily been phrased in terms of ‘security’ – the declared purpose of NATO; whereas I speculate one major element of public support for joining NATO is a ‘solidarity with Ukraine’ rebuke of Russia’s brutal invasion. Note: no poll that I am aware of has inquired into the ‘solidarity’ question – and I’ll wager no such poll exists. You only find what you look for, as I say.
5/ Note that the ‘we can wait rather than weakening our extradition laws’ statement of Finland supports #4 above.
Following #5 above: this is not just a govt. position – it’s got popular support:
“Poll – Public Prefers Delay to NATO Membership Rather than Bending Laws”
https://marketnews.com/poll-public-prefers-delay-to-nato-membership-rather-than-bending-laws
Again: this points to NATO membership support resting on ‘solidarity’ factors vs simply perceived ‘security threat’
Following #5 above: this is not just a govt. position – it’s got popular support:
“Poll – Public Prefers Delay to NATO Membership Rather than Bending Laws”
https://marketnews.com/poll-public-prefers-delay-to-nato-membership-rather-than-bending-laws
Again: this points to NATO membership support resting on ‘solidarity’ factors vs simply perceived ‘security threat’
It worked pretty much the same way as it did here, it started with Thatcher and Reagan and the Laffer curve, neoliberal economics What was the name of the guy who advocated a no tax economy way back during the Reagan years?
Did you not notice how the press is being controlled and information cleaned? Different opinions are demonized, people can lose their jobs if they oppose the war, or ask questions.
Not in Sweden nor in Denmark and not by the governments – not in EU as far as I know.
Correct, that’s why I for one believe people in Sweden are as stupid and gullible as the rest of the west.
The people of Sweden are not very different from most well educated people – they had no reason to think that the Soviets would invade or go to war with them even when the Soviets had a Uboat stuck in Swedish waters – so just what do you think made them switch their minds in the first 5 months of 2022?
“what do you think made them switch their minds in the first 5 months of 2022?”
The same thing that made americans all of a sudden decide that Germany was a mortal enemy of “freedom” and they had to go to war in 1917 … as Goering said after ww2:
“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”
You do know that it was the Zimmerman telegram that made that happen?
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-one-telegram-helped-to-lead-america-toward-war
But then the Swedes were not being told that they were under attack nor were they being told anything different from what they had been told since WWII – so why did they not join NATO in 1956 (Hungary) or 1968 (Prague).
If it is your claim that being told that the Russians invaded Ukraine is so strong that it convinced the Swedes against their better judgement and interests to apply for NATO membership why did it not work on those two previous occasions?
Indeed … perhaps back in ’56 or ’68 Sweden and Finland had actual patriotic leaders who loved their own country and did not owe allegiance to the empire yet? Perhaps people like the great Dag Hammarskjöld? People who eventually had to be gotten rid of and a whole new crew installed with appropriately pliable views?
No the difference is that the Swedish people did not change their minds and were not about to vote for parties that advocated joining NATO. Indeed this time it was only reluctantly that the Swedish politicians from the then ruling party decided that they had to change their stance – if you do not follow the movements I guess you cannot know – the idea that this was driven by an unpatriotic group of politicians is simply not supported by the evidence.
Sure, Michael … meanwhile, Nokia and Saab will look forward to interesting new contracts with NATO member states … also, there will likely be some nice appointments made to influential members of the two countries soon. Life is good …
Not sure that this is what changed the minds of ordinary Swedish and Finnish voters (it did nothing for the UK electorate in 2016) as for the “also, there will likely be some nice appointments made to influential members of the two countries soon” that again supposed that this was a top down movement, it was not demonstrably not so in Sweden. Finally the contracts for the Swedish (arms) industry would also have been a factor in 1956 and 1968.
Weird that the change in heart is so casually linked to the Russian invasion.
Public opinion is very much manipulated, without brainwashing it would not work. Remember Iraq and how the government massaged the public opinion to make them support the war.
really. here is a comment that you posted yesterday regarding putin and sweden =
Putin has said that them joining is not a problem to Russia.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/ru…
https://www.france24.com/en…
Yes – your point being exactly what???
That Putin has stated that he has no problem with Sweden and Finland joining NATO is hardly indicative of how the Swedes or the Finns would feel about being outside NATO is it?
my point was to point out that you had suggested that sweden had something to fear from putin who is supposedly “untrustworthy” when you had previously posted that putin has suggested that sweden has nothing to fear from russia, as long as NATO is not allowed to point missiles from there at russia.
furthermore, i think that you just like to argue with everybody so now i am out of this.
I have not suggested that Putin is untrustworthy but that the Swedes may think so.
I have never as far as I know posted anything about “when you had previously posted that putin has suggested that sweden has nothing to fear from russia, as long as NATO is not allowed to point missiles from there at russia” most likely as I am not aware that Putin has suggested anything like this.
Europeans aren’t immune from stupidity when it comes to the bogeyman tales about the Russians coming for your ____ (fill in the blank). They’re just as ignorant, stupid, and gullible as people here in the US.
Only the Swedes and Finns were until 2022, you have to wonder why that year changed things that is if you are capable of independent thought!
Money does the trick, without corruption it would not work. Ask Zelensky, he knows.
Are you proposing that a significant majority of very ordinary Swedes were bribed – if so how???
And for the record corruption is worse in Russia – and they have sped a lot of money to corrupt people in the west to align with Putin’s views like the AFD.
Sweden has no land border with Russia, Sweden has been a de facto NATO member, they cleaned up the evidence of the pipeline sabotage preventing the Germans to investigate, they have not been in any war for more than 120 years. They are now a neoliberal nation and money is important. They sold their nation, a corrupt class. They need Erdogan to save them from their own political class.
They want to board a sinking ship. There will be no NATO after this war. If not, would they want to join in a war against China?
So much stupidity must get paid.
Very true, this has however not changed how the Swedes perceived the situation as different from 1956 and 1968 even though Sweden did not have a land border with any Warsaw pact country back then (either) – so your point is relevant how?
NATO’s only true value is article 5 – that has not and does not still cover Sweden, so no they are not de facto members.
Any evidence for this other than that they did not turn up evidence that confirmed your prejudged position? I am of the opinion that who ever carried out the job did not leave evidence of their involvement and hence there was no proof to find.
So money was not important before??? They sold their nation to whom? And finally how can Erdogan save them from what a very large majority of them want – their political class only reluctantly and slowly followed the lead of the opinion polls – the same as in Denmark.
NATO will disappear only if the despotic threat to its members disappear or invades and dissolves it – neither seems very likely at present. War with China is not going to happen unless Xi invades Taiwan, which he is not likely to do unless the West lifts sanctions on Russia.
Money greases the wheels, it never fails.
“‘Finland is not in such a rush to join Nato that we can’t wait until Sweden gets the green light,’ Finnish Foreign Minister…Haavisto said.”
Breaking news update:
Following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Haavisto announced at a press conference that he had misspoken:
“What I really meant was that, though Finland might not appear to be in a rush to join NATO, inwardly I’ll be sweating bullets, praying NATO will let us in before the Russian beasts come pouring across our border – like they’ve clearly been on the brink of doing for the last three-quarters of a century.”
Well, it looks like all that cold doesn’t help with oxygen to the brain after all.
Amazing, the contortions this species of invertebrates is capable of. But usually bourgeois pols don’t have to be told where the blessed long-green is coming from.
I wonder how much he was paid for that little bit. None of them are honorable people. Only deep corruption can explain such behavior as they show.
cough-cough…um…i might have misremembered…or embellished…or maybe even slightly invented…or, er, more than ‘slightly’ invented…elements…possibly very large elements…of that ‘news update’…probably a good thing to always take my ‘news flashes’ w/a grain of salt…
Well, it is crazy world, sarcasm must be labeled now. /s
What good Statesmen worked hard and successfully for the conmen, slimy people will destroy, it has to be money, the only plausible explanation.
So given all this, given that Sweden is an unlikely conflict zone and is historically neutral; how realistic were the “fears” that Ukraine would be admitted. NATO operates on a black ball system so Turkey, or Hungary could say no and no it would be.
Moreover while having a border conflict they could not have entered NATO – quite a few other than Turkey or Hungary would have objected to such a violation of principles.
Cry me a river.
That is what I’ve been predicting from Day One of this “deal.”
Poor Erdogan. It seems he faces a tough decision. Free oil and gas from Russia or a regime change operation against him from the US? (Sarcasm alert)
The sultan is just bargaining for the best deal for his country, as he should.
Except destroying Syria and flooding his country with refugees and Jihadis was not the best deal for his country. Is he getting wiser?
And the prospect of having to answer to Victoria Nuland is daunting indeed.
The Swedes can’t be trusted, they cleaned up the evidence of the pipeline sabotage, who wants another ally you can’t trust. Erdogan is right, Swedes are not trustworthy anyway. The Olaf Palme years are gone. The Germans know who sabotaged the pipeline, but they can’t say because their so-called Allies did it, with the US in the lead. And bootlicker Scholtz most likely knew all about it before it happened. That must be why Biden took over at the press conference Feb, 7, 22
It seems to me that Sweden never intended to honor Turkey’s conditions, but tried very hard to convince Turkey that it had.
… So, don’t join…!
“Sweden Says It Can’t Meet Some of Turkey’s Demands to Join NATO Turkey has said Sweden and Finland need to do more to join NATO”
Turkey might just save the people of Sweden and Finland from their corrupt politicians, by denying NATO membership and allowing them to maintain their neutrality and sanity.