TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,377
Reactions
5 17,918
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
LOL, I knew this was gonna happen. Erdogan is not a stupid man but he is poison for Turkey. He needs to leave.

Hell no i used to be Anti Erdogan but now thanks to ahaber.

Im 100% Erdogang all the way.

I enjoy watching ahaber with my grandma who constantly yells at the tv.
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,502
Reactions
4 7,757
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
NATO is not a lawmaking organisation. NATO is an international treaty organisation and members commit to follow the articles in that treaty. The entrant has to ratify the treaty as well, and in that process they ensure that the treaty is in accordance with the law in that country.
Turkiye law does not apply in Sweden and Swedish law does not apply in Turkiye. Just as Turkiye law does not apply in the United States, the UK or in any other NATO country.
Swedish law does not vary greatly from any other western democracy either with respect to freedom of expression, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands to name a few have very similar freedoms of expression.

You misunderstand law thing.
NATO is military organization. It have organization laws it have conditions for new members.
When I wrote about Sweden and Finland I mean that they try to hide behind their country laws. Please do not change the focus like "law does not vary greatly from any other western democracy". It is about Military obligations they follow NATO organizations agreements (Laws). It is about that Laws/agreements they are there. Sweden and Finland trying to say our country law Allow that and this is OK. Issue it that is it not OK for NATO organization and his members.
There are issues related to terrorists and Sweden and Finland are the Nest or main source of support of them against Turkiye. This was openly and clearly stated by Turkiye and confirmed by NATO Secretary General that this issue must be fix it.

Sweden and Finland keep pushing matter to other direction. They choose to start "play" a political campaign against Turkiye using Islamist biases by trying to change the focus. This will go to only one end delay and delay for entering in NATO.
Main thing remain, how you gonna fix "terrorists state" thing. It is a fact and twisting the true will not help.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,377
Reactions
5 17,918
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Whole burning Quran by the far right of Sweden is just an own goal.

Not only did they piss off Turkiye but now the whole Muslim World lmaoo

Even Azerbaijan made a statement condemning it. Now kiss that good old Azerbaijani gas good bye.

Burn just broke the camels back while Turkiye constantly pushed for sweden and finland to do their commitments instead brushed it aside.

Naive Western liberals want to kick Turkiye and Hungary out.
 

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden
You misunderstand law thing.
NATO is military organization. It have organization laws it have conditions for new members.
When I wrote about Sweden and Finland I mean that they try to hide behind their country laws. Please do not change the focus like "law does not vary greatly from any other western democracy". It is about Military obligations they follow NATO organizations agreements (Laws). It is about that Laws/agreements they are there. Sweden and Finland trying to say our country law Allow that and this is OK. Issue it that is it not OK for NATO organization and his members.
There are issues related to terrorists and Sweden and Finland are the Nest or main source of support of them against Turkiye. This was openly and clearly stated by Turkiye and confirmed by NATO Secretary General that this issue must be fix it.

Sweden and Finland keep pushing matter to other direction. They choose to start "play" a political campaign against Turkiye using Islamist biases by trying to change the focus. This will go to only one end delay and delay for entering in NATO.
Main thing remain, how you gonna fix "terrorists state" thing. It is a fact and twisting the true will not help.

No, thats a misnomer. NATO does not have laws, NATO can not make or enforce laws in any single country that is the duty of the legislative assembly in that country. Neither Sweden nor Finland is "hiding behind their laws" we are following the laws of our respective constitutions. Neither of them are interested in running a "play" political campaign either. There is nothing to gain from that. Right now, the only one that benefits, greatly, from fomenting discord in europe and within NATO is Russia.

It's hard to fix something that doesn't exist in anything but rhetoric.
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,502
Reactions
4 7,757
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
No, thats a misnomer. NATO does not have laws, NATO can not make or enforce laws in any single country that is the duty of the legislative assembly in that country. Neither Sweden nor Finland is "hiding behind their laws" we are following the laws of our respective constitutions. Neither of them are interested in running a "play" political campaign either. There is nothing to gain from that. Right now, the only one that benefits, greatly, from fomenting discord in europe and within NATO is Russia.

It's hard to fix something that doesn't exist in anything but rhetoric.

Ok you going at the same thing again and again.
Let try it to explain in other way

- We talking about Military Alliance between countries.
- This Military Alliance have Agreements = Laws, Obligations= Must do, Commitments, Conditions etc. signed by all parties.

Questions: please keep you country laws aside.

Where are NATO Military obligations/agreements text in you post?
Where are NATO Military preconditions related to a new country?
Where its say that any new NATO member/country is allowed to keep supporting of terrorist organizations and can keep protecting them against NATO member?

You removing "NATO obligations" with "Sweden country laws". This is changing the focus.

Keep in mind Sweden and Finland want to enter in "Military Alliance NATO".
Keep in mind Sweden and Finland must obey Military organization agreed clauses-> which are alliance Laws. Laws which have preconditions, obligations, commitments, conditions etc.
Sweden and Finland county LAWs must be updated or changed, if they are contradicting NATO military agreements/laws. I am talking about military,security, intelligence etc. laws
 

Mehmed Ali

Contributor
Messages
496
Reactions
1 905
Nation of residence
England(UK)
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Anyone thinking that by supporting PKK, Europeans or other endanger themselves are really wrong. Pkk anti fa, blm , environmental and other kind of extremists are one and the same. I am sure , if needs to be they are gone in very short period of time.
I am sure that the burning of Qur'an AM was yet another miniature directed and motivated politically by the Swedish government. It is all nice and dandy for what Swedish law stands but by that logic should be applied in other things , it is fine that those freedoms exist, the problem is that those " freedoms" Sweden through different means wants to propagate to other " less fortunate " , in the case of Turkey it means propagating PKK and other rubbish. In other words Swedes think that their laws are applicable to others.
Sweden likes to poke its nose to other people business and that comes under jurisdiction of other countries.
If we apply logic Sweden is a rouge state as Afghanistan, supporters and facilitiers of terrorism.
 

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden
Ok you going at the same thing again and again.
Let try it to explain in other way

- We talking about Military Alliance between countries.
- This Military Alliance have Agreements = Laws, Obligations= Must do, Commitments, Conditions etc. signed by all parties.

Questions: please keep you country laws aside.

Where are NATO Military obligations/agreements text in you post?
Where are NATO Military preconditions related to a new country?
Where its say that any new NATO member/country is allowed to keep supporting of terrorist organizations and can keep protecting them against NATO member?

You removing "NATO obligations" with "Sweden country laws". This is changing the focus.

Keep in mind Sweden and Finland want to enter in "Military Alliance NATO".
Keep in mind Sweden and Finland must obey Military organization agreed clauses-> which are alliance Laws. Laws which have preconditions, obligations, commitments, conditions etc.
Sweden and Finland county LAWs must be updated or changed, if they are contradicting NATO military agreements/laws. I am talking about military,security, intelligence etc. laws


No. Thats a very simplistic way of describing it. We are talking about a defensive military alliance as drawn up by treaty between nations. There is a clear judicial distinction between a law and a treaty, especially when it comes to international relations. In the accession protocols there can be requirements on how laws in a country need to be adjusted, generally allowing a country to receive and give aid, immunity for NATO staff members in certain circumstances and hosting other militaries on their soil and suchlike. Thats it. Those then need to be approved by the legislative body of that country and those parts codified.

Here is the charter of NATO. The council of NATO can advise and recommend, but in the end it is every government that would have to make decisions. Otherwise NATO could have enforced the 2% spending from BNP for example, which they obviously can't.


This is the accession protocols that sweden would have to adhere to:

Swedens and Finlands laws need to be changed according to the accession protocol, these changes are limited to:
1. Provide a framework for offering and supplying help in the form of armed units and applying for help from NATO-allies.
2. Providing a framework to allow foreign military units to act on sovereign soil.
3. Afford a degree of diplomatic protection to foreign military personell acting on behalf of NATO.
4. Afford NATO tax-exempt status.
 

Fuzuli NL

Experienced member
Germany Correspondent
Messages
2,825
Reactions
20 8,212
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Would Sweden allow IS sympathizers to hold a demo?
Would it be OK with some of their politicians taking pictures with IS terrorists holding their flag?
Isn't PKK listed as a terror group in Sweden?

Bullshit stories of freedom of expression. Western libtard hypocrisy at its best.
 

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden
Would Sweden allow IS sympathizers to hold a demo?
Would it be OK with some of their politicians taking pictures with IS terrorists holding their flag?
Isn't PKK listed as a terror group in Sweden?

Bullshit stories of freedom of expression. Western libtard hypocrisy at its best.


They probably would be able to hold a demo, although i don't think they ever applied to do that. As long as they adhere to laws and don't hurt anyone.

Yes, although hardly appropriate and he would have to answer at the polls.

PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation with in all EU countries. As is IS. Still, a flag is a piece of cloth as already discussed here.


I'm sorry you feel that way.
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,502
Reactions
4 7,757
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
No. Thats a very simplistic way of describing it. We are talking about a defensive military alliance as drawn up by treaty between nations. There is a clear judicial distinction between a law and a treaty, especially when it comes to international relations. In the accession protocols there can be requirements on how laws in a country need to be adjusted, generally allowing a country to receive and give aid, immunity for NATO staff members in certain circumstances and hosting other militaries on their soil and suchlike. Thats it. Those then need to be approved by the legislative body of that country and those parts codified.

Here is the charter of NATO. The council of NATO can advise and recommend, but in the end it is every government that would have to make decisions. Otherwise NATO could have enforced the 2% spending from BNP for example, which they obviously can't.


This is the accession protocols that sweden would have to adhere to:

Swedens and Finlands laws need to be changed according to the accession protocol, these changes are limited to:
1. Provide a framework for offering and supplying help in the form of armed units and applying for help from NATO-allies.
2. Providing a framework to allow foreign military units to act on sovereign soil.
3. Afford a degree of diplomatic protection to foreign military personell acting on behalf of NATO.
4. Afford NATO tax-exempt status.

I really did not know that NATO military alliance is only bound to as you said "The council of NATO can advise and recommend, but in the end it is every government that would have to make decisions".
I think we have solution here because there are NO obligations, only advise and recommends. Taking all that in to consideration then Sweden should keep protecting PKK terrorists and second they have to take a NATO adviser to align themself when they need "advise and recommends".

Conclusion: Terrorists Issue is fix it. Sweden stay out of NATO. You government is free to take advises and recommends from NATO adviser when ever you like
 

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden
I really did not know that NATO military alliance is only bound to as you said "The council of NATO can advise and recommend, but in the end it is every government that would have to make decisions".
I think we have solution here because there are NO obligations, only advise and recommends. Taking all that in to consideration then Sweden should keep protecting PKK terrorists and second they have to take a NATO adviser to align themself when they need "advise and recommends".

Conclusion: Terrorists Issue is fix it. Sweden stay out of NATO. You government is free to take advises and recommends from NATO adviser when ever you like


Yup, thats the fear of article 5 and why there is so much political and diplomatic activity proclaiming how everyone is in agreement about it.


"This language [Article 5] is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor."


"If a NATO ally is attacked, would Article 5 authorize the president to send U.S. forces into conflict?
No. Even if a NATO ally is attacked and Article 5 is invoked, the president needs to obtain congressional authorization before sending the military into a conflict zone or otherwise using force. Article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty explains that “its provisions [shall be] carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” In the United States, that means securing express authorization from Congress, which has the sole constitutional power to declare war and is responsible for military appropriations and oversight."
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,502
Reactions
4 7,757
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
My head is going to explode from the unbelieveable amounts of disingenuity oozing from your posts.

Why are westerners like this 😩

This is their way of living. Do not try to change it. It is a lost battle.
On other hand many other countries still know and have what is normal, right, good mean.
One advice: do NOT lie yourself about most of West people. Something bad happened with them. Even in social talking they always keep trying to twist everything to make themself right others are wrong
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,502
Reactions
4 7,757
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yup, thats the fear of article 5 and why there is so much political and diplomatic activity proclaiming how everyone is in agreement about it.


"This language [Article 5] is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor."


"If a NATO ally is attacked, would Article 5 authorize the president to send U.S. forces into conflict?
No. Even if a NATO ally is attacked and Article 5 is invoked, the president needs to obtain congressional authorization before sending the military into a conflict zone or otherwise using force. Article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty explains that “its provisions [shall be] carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” In the United States, that means securing express authorization from Congress, which has the sole constitutional power to declare war and is responsible for military appropriations and oversight."


As I said you keep talking about Already to members of NATO. They are there are because Obligations and conditions which they Obeyed in order to be part of NATO.

Sweden is NOT member of NATO.
As you said you understanding NATO as "advise and recommends.".
So lets keep it clean. Sweden should stay out and keep applying their understanding "advise and recommend"

So we/members of NATO can keep discussing what we can do and apply.
 

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden
As I said you keep talking about Already to members of NATO. They are there are because Obligations and conditions which they Obeyed in order to be part of NATO.

Sweden is NOT member of NATO.
As you said you understanding NATO as "advise and recommends.".
So lets keep it clean. Sweden should stay out and keep applying their understanding "advise and recommend"

So we/members of NATO can keep discussing what we can do and apply.

You said you didnt want to discuss Swedens laws and accession?

The brennan center discusses the US view, which, as far as i know, is a member of NATO.


Not being part of something apparently does not prevent you from having opinions and it doesn't take that much effort to understand the diplomatic underpinnings of any international organisation.
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,502
Reactions
4 7,757
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
You said you didnt want to discuss Swedens laws and accession?

The brennan center discusses the US view, which, as far as i know, is a member of NATO.


Not being part of something apparently does not prevent you from having opinions and it doesn't take that much effort to understand the diplomatic underpinnings of any international organisation.

-"You said you didnt want to discuss Swedens laws?" Yes I do not. They are not part of NATO obligations.
-"The brennan center discusses the US view". Yep it is only US side. It is clear. Why involving them? Again misleading discussion Once again in other Direction
-"Not being part of something apparently does not prevent you from having opinions." You twisting it again. I said that Sweden/you understand is -> "advise and recommend" and I accept this understanding. It is Sweden opinion.


Conclusion remain the same:
Sweden stay out of NATO. If they like it they can use their opinion and take own decision whether or not take NATO "advise and recommend" ideas.
Keep being terrorist nest and be as it was before.

NATO is military alliance and when war is at you home. it is definitely not like "advise and recommend" thingy
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,398
Reactions
9 8,921
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
No, thats a misnomer. NATO does not have laws, NATO can not make or enforce laws in any single country that is the duty of the legislative assembly in that country. Neither Sweden nor Finland is "hiding behind their laws" we are following the laws of our respective constitutions. Neither of them are interested in running a "play" political campaign either. There is nothing to gain from that. Right now, the only one that benefits, greatly, from fomenting discord in europe and within NATO is Russia.

It's hard to fix something that doesn't exist in anything but rhetoric.

From a Turkish perspective we have done our part to counter the soviet union and Russia at great cost and risk. We were also one of the few nations that was with Ukraine from before the war started, most european/nato nations didnt enter the game until they saw it was safe to do so. Lets be honest about it, the Polish can see this reality about Turkiye.

On top of this we have to directly put our necks on the line to counter Russia in Syria, Libya and Azerbaijan. Yes this served our interests, but no one was supporting us or rushing to our side. No talks about unity or division then, we were completely left alone. In the case of Libya, France is overtly on the side of Russia. That's creating big division within NATO that no one wants to talk about. I would even argue that france and germany being so friendly with Russia is the primary reason this war in Ukraine even happened, that friendship made Putin feel comfortable in invading Ukraine.

Anyway Sweden has been known to harbour the PKK against Turkiye, extreme left wing marxist terrorists. You can't expect us to put our sons and daughters heads on the line in a potential war to protect sweden from a Russian attack while supporting terrorist organisation against us. And talks about its not pkk its YPG its insulting us.

Now you can be ignorant most europeans are concerning the PKK, but as you can see on this forum the PKK issue is beyond AK party. They are playing a stupid game, but Sweden's arrogance has been disgusting as well. You are literally behaving and acting like you are more important then Turkiye despite not being in NATO and despite doing nothing to counter the soviet union or Russia, other then to avoid the responsilibity until it came to your doorstep and now overnight you want membership that could directly result in Turkiye going to war to protect you.

I don't like erdogan and i don't like AK party, but Sweden's behaviour has been disgusting as well. Lower year heads, be less arrogant and more respectful towards Turkiye. There is nothing say you were ever going to be accepted in until all members agree on it, thats a reality of NATO.

Outside of the PKK issue its very possible that tomorrow Russia invades sweden, do Turks want to fight Russia to protect sweden, i dont think so. Ukraine yes, strategic interests and Ukraine has been a friend to Turkiye and the tartars, sweden no. Turks letting you in would be purely a goodwill gesture even if the PKK issue didnt exist. But if it didnt exist Turks wouldnt oppose it and you would have been admitted yesterday.

And Sweden we don't owe you anything, don't expect from us. If you get from us thank us for the goodwill. But don't condemn us because you can't have what you want. Your states behavour reminds me of the swedish kings behaviour who fled to Ottoman lands after he got curshed by the Russians, who overstayed his welcome and then fought with the Ottomans directly when it was time to leave.

A man who the Russians threatened us to hand over who would be executed by them and if we refused the Russians would declare war.

And rationally don't go round burning Qurans, its counter productive, its poor taste especially when you need a Muslim majority nation to accept your application. That man undermined the entire sovereignty of Sweden by doing such an act considering the circumstances.
 
Last edited:

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden
From a Turkish perspective we have done our part to counter the soviet union and Russia at great cost and risk. We were also one of the few nations that was with Ukraine from before the war started, most european/nato nations didnt enter the game until they saw it was safe to do so. Lets be honest about it, the Polish can see this reality about Turkiye.

Thats completely reasonable perspective. From my perspective I could add that there has been a very deep divide in Sweden since the early 90's around NATO with about 30-40% popular support, slightly lower in Finland that have focused heavily on dialogue with Russia. The 180 that the Social Democrats did (who, together with the left and the green party have been historically opposed to any alliance that includes the US) was frankly astonishing to watch in real time.

On top of this we have to directly put our necks on the line to counter Russia in Syria, Libya and Azerbaijan. Yes this served our interests, but no one was supporting us or rushing to our side. No talks about unity or division then, we were completely left alone. In the case of Libya, France is overtly on the side of Russia. That's creating big division within NATO that no one wants to talk about.
I agree, really, and thats something that you should have credit for. There was this interview with an american general that emphasized this as well, quoting from memory but something to the effect that "whenever there was an international coalition or force Turkiye was always there".

Anyway Sweden has been known to harbour the PKK against Turkiye, extreme left wing marxist terrorists. You can't expect us to put our sons and daughters heads on the line in a potential war to protect sweden from a Russian attack while supporting terrorist organisation against us. And talks about its not pkk its YPG its insulting us.
I don't know enough about the history and the divisions there to argue anything. I think part of the problem is that the PKK is classed as a terrorist organisation within the EU but YPG is not, and the wording in the trilateral agreement is pretty vague and cites only "PKK". For clarity it would have been much better that they actually hammered out exactly what they meant before the three parties signed. Furthermore, the PKK was already classified as a terrorist org way before the agreement. PKK has been classed as a terrorist organisation in Sweden since 1984, the first country to do so after Turkiye.

Now you can be ignorant most europeans are concerning the PKK, but as you can see on this forum the PKK issue is beyond AK party. They are playing a stupid game, but Sweden's arrogance has been disgusting as well. You are literally behaving and acting like you are more important then Turkiye despite not being in NATO and despite doing nothing to counter the soviet union or Russia, other then to avoid the responsilibity until it came to your doorstep and now overnight you want membership that could directly result in Turkiye going to war to protect you.
This is interesting, since there seems to be diverging narratives here. I don't think the politicians are actively trying to act that way, depending on what coalition of colors are in government. Commenting to Swedish press they have been unusually subdued compared to other times.

I don't like erdogan and i don't like AK party, but Sweden's behaviour has been disgusting as well. Lower year heads, be less arrogant and more respectful towards Turkiye. There is nothing say you were ever going to be accepted in until all members agree on it, thats a reality of NATO.

Outside of the PKK issue its very possible that tomorrow Russia invades sweden, do Turks want to fight Russia to protect sweden, i dont think so. Ukraine yes, strategic interests and Ukraine has been a friend to Turkiye and the tartars, sweden no. Turks letting you in would be purely a goodwill gesture even if the PKK issue didnt exist. But if it didnt exist Turks wouldnt oppose it and you would have been admitted yesterday.

And Sweden we don't owe you anything, don't expect from us. If you get from us thank us for the goodwill. But don't condemn us because you can't have what you want. Your states behavour reminds me of the swedish kings behaviour who fled to Ottoman lands after he got curshed by the Russians, who overstayed his welcome and then fought with the Ottomans directly when it was time to leave.

A man who the Russians threatened us to hand over who would be executed by them and if we refused the Russians would declare war.

Charles the XII, thats royalty for you.
 

tracer

Active member
Messages
116
Reactions
1 302
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Sweden

Sweden shot itself in the foot, allowing Russian pawns to sabotage the process.

Yeah, I posted a bit about that in an earlier post. There have been quite a few information operations perpetrated by russian trolls or their associates during the last couple of years. Problematic getting to them though since lying your ass off in public is not a punishable offence.

Frick paid the application fee for the demonstration, but there is also a reporter (and i use that word in the loosest sense) from a extremist right wing site called exakt24 who have even closer ties to Russia involved as well.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom