What's new

Should we accept Sweden into NATO?

Should we accept Sweden into NATO?

  • YES - Sweden should gain the trust of other member countries of the union with the steps it will tak

    Votes: 26 44.1%
  • NO - If Sweden is to continue supporting terrorism, it must get along with Russia

    Votes: 35 59.3%

  • Total voters
    59
There were good days and bad days between Greece and Turkiye. But the attempt to protect Öcalan was really at a different point. It was such an unethical act that, as Akritias puts it, USA had to block the protection by the Greek intelligence in Nairobi in order to prevent the great tension between Greece and Turkiye, where it was uncertain how could evolve at that time. I just presume, if CIA did not intervened, our special forces would probably have clashed in Kenya.
They wanted the Kurds as a potential "ally" just in case of a war with Turkey,I think.

That's why after he was kicked from all friendly countries,like you said,they tried to protect him. That was a big fiasco those days and a minister resigned.

But again,they probably wanted him as a connection,just in case of a big war with Turkey,supposedly the Kurds could have opened a second front in the East or whatever. Remember,it was 3 years after Imia.

But these were different times as well. Syria was intact,Iraq was still not under U.S. occupation,Russia was weak.
 
If you want to modernize your air force, the answer is : YES.

****

Putin makes Russia to a country every man and woman in Europe are afraid of.
It was freithening one year ago. Now it is pityfull.
The sole asset that remains to Russia is its nukes. Without Russia is a rotten shack (military speaking).
 
ALERT

/The intelligence level of some analysts in the forum/

"The life of the Swedish or the French is valuable, but the life of a Turkish citizen is not valuable either. Turkey should never oppose these country's political interests and not defend its national interests in the face of these countries providing weapons and financial support to terrorism."

/The intelligence level of some analysts in the forum/


*

Does Sweden provide financial support to a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of large numbers of civilians and soldiers in Turkey? Yes.

Does it provide weapons aid to this terrorist organization? Yes.

Does it provide training and doctrinal support to this terrorist organization? Yes.

Do they protect this terrorist organization and openly defend their crimes? Yes.

Now, does Sweden want to enter into an alliance that includes the Turkish military elements (which is one of the 3 biggest factor in structure) and civilian institutions? Yes.

So, when Turkey expresses its reservations to Sweden, what is the reaction of the socalled analysts here? Let's talk about how far Turkey has moved away from European values and let's dream of getting Turkey out of NATO.

Some members, unable to grasp how great Turkey's strategic importance for NATO, are trying to push Turkey's justified demands into the background by writing lengthy nonsense things.

Moreover, the alternative strategies they put forward are based on the premise that Turkey will never make a counter move. lol. It's really funny and tragic. This is not an analysis but a kind of imposible wish based on one side perspective.

*

In 1980 we approved the return of Greece to NATO's military wing. None of the promises made were kept. On the contrary, some NATO countries took steps to increase the tension between Greece and Turkey. In the 2000s, it was the AKP government that allowed France to return to NATO's military wing, ignoring all the problems between us. In return, France began to openly support a terrorist organization operating within our borders.

No matter which government repeats these mistakes, public support in the country will largely disappear. If Turkey go to a referendum on Sweden's acceptance, it would probably be 90% NO at the moment.

that from a nation which was main main trade partner of ISIS and were most ISIS figther came from...

if you sit in a glashouse stop throwing stones ;)
 
What kind of gift was offered to the small Sultan?
Some F110 engines? Some AMRAAM ?

whatever it was - it was not enough as sweden is not on the list. However if Finland is added to NATO - then there is no landborder threat to Sweden. Only Naval and Aerial - and judging by Russia's performance in Ukraine - Sweden can take care of Russia alone in those two domains...
 
After the turkish election, when Erdogan is done with the chest thumping, Sweden is joining NATO.
@dBSPL You are laughing because you know it is true.
 
Last edited:
It's not changing much whether or not Turkey veto Sweden Membership.

What Sweden want is not exactly the same as what most NATO member wants, or what Finland want, the Swede joining NATO is a simple way of having US, UK or France to protect Sweden, which make it less likely to attack by Russia. Had Russia attack Sweden, set aside a seaborne invasion, there are no way to invade Sweden via land without go thru Finland or Norway first. Which mean the Swede is looking at NATO member that have strong Navy and Airforce to protect its border. Mainly the US. They also wanted Nuclear Umbrella in case of Russian using Tactical Nuke on Sweden. That's why Sweden effectively just look at US, UK and France.

So what if Sweden NATO bid being Vetoed? Not much would happen as long as US and France are willing to sign individual defence pact with Sweden (UK already did), I don't know how France work, but for US, US have multiple way to form security pact with Sweden, they can either go a non-binding security agreement similar to ANZUS pact, which allow station of US troop and ship in Sweden. (The current ANZUS pact allow US to permanently rotate 2 Marine Regiment to Northern Territories and free access to all Australian port to US Ship vice versa to US.)

Or the US can go for a binding Military Pact with Permanent Station of Troop in Sweden like the one the US have with Japan. All it needed is a bill that pass thru Congress and Senate. Which IIRC they had the number to do it now.

On the other hand, Sweden being a powerhouse of Military Technology (Saab is one of the most advance fighter aircraft manufacturer, Bofor and Carl Gustav weapon usually top export chart. Which mean NATO would gain a lot more combat power and combat technology if Sweden is allowed to NATO.

In my Opinion, I don't think Erdogan will say no to Sweden Membership, because that would increasingly isolate Turkey within NATO, more or less to a point Turkey could be risked being left behind in the organisation, or even the west would go very far to ditch NATO and form a new defensive alliance to include Sweden and Finland (Not likely this will happen but this is a possibility) and conventional wisdom would suggest the West would more incline to choose Sweden and Finland over Turkey if it have to choose between a single entity. Which make Turkey position not as good as it could be to veto the deal.

On the other hand, one thing I have heard from US a few days ago is that there are some people within the Capitol called for suspension of Turkey NATO membership if Turkey is going to veto or "sabotage" the vote. While there are no mechanism to remove a member from NATO, and after a quick discussion with my wife (Who is an international lawyer, coincidentally also Swedish) she said NATO does not have a mechanism to remove a member does not mean they cannot be removed. According to Article 60 of Vienna convention regarding Law of Treaties, member within a treaty can vote to remove a member if it had breach the contractual obligation of said treaties with a unanimous vote, so it would not be far fetch to say if Turkey did not contribute 2% of its GDP on defence (as a part of NATO obligation) other country can remove Turkey if they all voted to. But, that's just one lawyer opinion, I would take this with a grain of salt as this is not legally challenged.

Hi,

Turkiye will be removed from Nato membership.

They have been used against Russia--- and russia is no more---.
 
Sweden is the country that fears Russia the most. We are talking about a country that built around 40,000 bunkers during the Cold War, mostly because of fear of nuclear attack. This fear is now driving them into the despair of joining NATO. However, they tries to fend off the just demands by trying to develop stupid political discourse, never wanna face their own mistakes and still trying keeping their tail up.

Today, we have read many things accusing and insulting Turkey on Swedish social media and mainstream media, even from representatives of small left parties.

Sweden tries to explain its political interests and irresponsible arrogance with so-called human rights advocacy and liberalism; they accuse us of being an anti-democratic dictatorship. They even try to market Turkey as a pro-Russian, Eurasian, and bigotary country against the european values.

We will get into some details in this thread and I will ask just one question, which writin on title.

*

But first, I would like to make a few reminders to some circles who do not hesitate to slander Turkish values and culture:

How many people know that the basis of Sweden's legendary social welfare state system was a disastrous decades-long campaign of ethnic cleansing. More than 60,000 people in Sweden were victims of a Nazi-style forced sterilization campaign just because their type didn't resemble the Nordic race.

What is the name of sterilizing and extinction of non-purebreds in order to create an 'ideal' society? What kind of thoughts were behind the Institute of Racial Biology, which was established in Sweden in 1921 for the first time in the world, printing posters saying "Ideal northern type"? They explained that the policy followed at that time was to prevent the proliferation of unsuitable generations in order to establish an ideal society. Moreover, among those who support this view, the Nobel Prize-winning social democratic thinker Prof. Gunnar Myrdal and his wife, Nobel Peace Prize winner Alva Myrdal, were also present.


The signature under the circulars sent to the authorities for the measurement of skulls was Tage Erlander, the legendary leader of the Swedish social democrats. In your history books, schoolbooks and encyclopedias, neither how 100,000 people were sterilized written nor the "State Institute of Racial Biology" was written, which was established in Uppsala in 1921, and later Nazi Germany took as an example. European historiography is purely political, lacking in objectivity, and, like Rome writing Carthage, a triumphal quackery.

FSvMxT_WYAEUDhl


Years and years later; Historian Gunnar Broberg's book and Polish journalist Maciej Zaremba's research published in the Dagen Nyheter newspaper dated 19-20 August 1997 revealed Sweden nazism and ethnic cleansing methods.

Nordic countries followed the same line as Sweden. Between 1935 and 1976, approximately 50,000 people in Norway and 6,000 people in Denmark were sterilized. Although it is written that sterilization is optional in the law, it has been seen that repression is used in practice.

FSvNR9oWUAQJTnZ


In 1942, a circular was signed by Tage Erlander to make a census of all gypsies and the mobile workers called "Tattare". Prior to this, a report called the 'non pure race' was prepared about the Tattares in 1937.

Although the opinion that the Tattares could be assimilated gained weight in the evaluation made after the report, the sterilization policy was preferred, and a census and search was started for all their people one by one, because of the fear of the emergence of bad habits in future generations.

FSvNc1BXsAIbqDy

FSvQChgXEAI_Evl


When the skull measurements were completed in 1945, it was revealed that the Tattares were Swedish, but the General Directorate of Social Services did not accept this result. After 1950, when UNESCO opposed the use of the concept of race in a racist sense, the Tattares were called "counter race".

And a large number of Tattares were neutered. According to Maija Runcis, who is a doctoral researcher on sterilization policy, since the law only allows voluntary sterilization, the authorities issued a phony report for the victims chosen by the authorities as "mentally unstable".

Documents available show that 95 percent of those sterilized are women. Those who were admitted to the school for the handicapped were also threatened with the worst conditions throughout their lives if they did not agree to be sterilized at the end of school.

The increase in sterilization in the 1940s was partly due to the fact that child assistance would be introduced in accordance with the principles of the welfare state in the following years. Gunnar Myrdal, who wanted to point out that those who do not contribute to the welfare society should not benefit from the assistances, warned that “Child aid may lead to an increase in those with bad hereditary characteristics” at that time.

A record was broken with 2264 sterilization operations in 1948, when child aid began, because people with undesirable characteristics were feared to give birth incessantly to benefit from child assistance. The sterilization operations based on the logic of 'Let the undeserving perish' actually lasted until the mid-1960s.

The eugenics, which began quietly in 1935, was quietly ended in 1976 when the law was repealed. The sterilization policy was tried to be explained by the "breeding" winds that blew all over the world in the 1930s, but research shows that this is not so.

Although purging of incompetent society was discussed in many European states, few states practiced it. And these policies were led by Sweden and Norway.

The real shocking truth: While sterilization was applied only for the mentally ill and during the Nazi era in Germany, in the northern countries under the hegemony of the social democrats, people who were seen as a hindrance in the establishment of the welfare state were chosen as victims. They built their society on a terrible form of racism.

The fact that sterilization laws were passed unanimously in the Swedish parliament, and the church allowed it, is also a point to consider. Lifting the veil over recent history has also revealed the hypocrisy of politicians.

In 1997, the Minister of Social Security, Margot Wallström, stated that she was deeply saddened by the events and would take the matter to the government for compensation, after the incident had a wide repercussions and a woman who was one of the victims of the sterilization policy announced that her application to the government for compensation was rejected.

At the bottom of the letter sent to the woman was this minister's signature and stated that compensation would not be paid as the practice was done in accordance with the law.

(I would like to thank journalist Mithat Alaban for his article and photos they share which used as a source, this part of post.)

***

Today, Sweden still continues to ignore other people's lives for its own interests, openly support terrorism in other countries and try to explain all this with so-called human rights and liberalism. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people in Turkey.


Here is a brief summary of the current situation from another thread:





The real question is: Should we take Sweden, which has such a fascist and racist past, into NATO? Or should we not? Or is it worth sacrificing our Turkish soldiers, our Mehmetçik, to protect Sweden and their welfare?
Never jeopardize your sovereignty for the sake of powerful friend who live very far from your next door powerful potential enemy at your will.
 
Never jeopardize your sovereignty for the sake of powerful friend who live very far from your next door powerful potential enemy at your will.
We don't want Sweden to change its name, we don't want them to compromise on any of their national interests as like some other examples, and there is no thought of blocking them for years. What we are asking for are reasonable demands in the spirit of the alliance. If they abide by the protocol, we will happily have been in same military alliance with Sweden. As the European-region financial center of an organization that massacres Turkish soldiers and civilians (see: recent statements of the Swedish prime minister), it is a big contradiction to expect this army to fight for Sweden when necessary.

Finland has shown a much more responsible approach and has removed all obstacles to its membership and will soon be approved by the parliament. Sweden is not our enemy, on the contrary, it is a state with which we have great sympathy. Thread's first post is a response to what I saw on Swedish social media at the time, i.e. everyone has to deal with their own past first. The general public opinion about the Swedish state and nation is positive, although not as positive as about Finland.

The obstacle for Sweden is not the president of our country, those who manipulate the issue in this way are unfortunately not aware of the dynamics within TR and the approach to this issue. What stands between Sweden and NATO is a terrorist organization, and it is up to them to get rid of it. And this is not the Swedish army, but the political structure that holds executive power.
 
We don't want Sweden to change its name, we don't want them to compromise on any of their national interests as like some other examples, and there is no thought of blocking them for years. What we are asking for are reasonable demands in the spirit of the alliance. If they abide by the protocol, we will happily have been in same military alliance with Sweden. As the European-region financial center of an organization that massacres Turkish soldiers and civilians (see: recent statements of the Swedish prime minister), it is a big contradiction to expect this army to fight for Sweden when necessary.

Finland has shown a much more responsible approach and has removed all obstacles to its membership and will soon be approved by the parliament. Sweden is not our enemy, on the contrary, it is a state with which we have great sympathy. Thread's first post is a response to what I saw on Swedish social media at the time, i.e. everyone has to deal with their own past first. The general public opinion about the Swedish state and nation is positive, although not as positive as about Finland.

The obstacle for Sweden is not the president of our country, those who manipulate the issue in this way are unfortunately not aware of the dynamics within TR and the approach to this issue. What stands between Sweden and NATO is a terrorist organization, and it is up to them to get rid of it. And this is not the Swedish army, but the political structure that holds executive power.
Turkey has unique case compare to other white Christian countries.
1. Kuridish factions
2. Muslim country
3. And they have potential of resistance as any NATO unanimous decision.
 
that from a nation which was main main trade partner of ISIS and were most ISIS figther came from...

if you sit in a glashouse stop throwing stones ;)


This would be rote and hollow rhetoric, when it is a matter of court record that 'some' EU states are financing ISIS and building military fortifications against Turkish borders with companies from these countries.

Or not having any idea of how difficult it is to control a huge 910-kilometer border line crossed by 6 million refugees as well as the militants of the US-French-backed Pkk-Pyd and ISIS terrorist organizations when the state authority on the other side of the border is destroyed. Not knowing that it is the only NATO member country that directly operates against the ISIS terrorist organization with its own troops, not other terrorist organizations. Not knowing the country that has carried out the most operations against the ISIS terrorist organization, deciphering cell houses and making arrests. You are the ones sitting in glass houses, we have been used to these post-truth efforts for decades.

To the extent that the world's military superpower USA can prevent illegal Mexican immigration, drug and arms trafficking by gangs, I think we have a similar percentage of success, against this (mostly)French-backed terrorist organization or its soul mate other proxy narco-terrorists, aka ypg, pkk's brand new package.

After the turkish election, when Erdogan is done with the chest thumping, Sweden is joining NATO.
@dBSPL You are laughing because you know it is true.
No, I'm laughing at you for coming up with your own stupid conclusions about things you don't have any clue about.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Terrorist head Abdullah Öcalan also had a Greek passport. It was Greek intelligence that protected him because he could not find shelter in Europe and eventually took him to Kenya on February 2, 1999. He was brought to the Greek Consulate in Nairobi by a private plane. On February 15, 1999, as a result of diplomatic pressure, he was removed from the consulate and was caught in an operation, when being taken to Nairobi Airport. Then brought to Ankara.

This 'Cypriot-Greek' citizen is now in Imrali prison.
EgHormdWAAMrQst.jpg

The Swedish MP's problem does not concern us. Sweden's own problem. However, this does not necessitate disregarding her background in which she was trained in camps of armed terrorist organizations.
Amineh-Kakabaveh-1.jpg
Yes, being brought up in a Kurdish village in Iran outside Iranian control means that You get weapons training. You do not have a choice. It does not neccessarily mean that you commit an act of terrorism.
She left Iran for Sweden when she was ~20 years old, and have lived in Sweden for 35 years without participating in terrorism. Turkey has not provided any evidence that she has committed an act of terrorism.

She got elected to the parliament, was ejected from her party after an argument, and happened to have a swing vote which she could use until the election 2022 when she failed being elected.

To continue mentioning her is a good example on why Turkey has an untenable position within NATO.
 
Erdogan seems to surrender.
What a joke.
Turkey will NEVER enter in EU.
 

Back
Top Bottom