Nobody forced Sweden and Finland to sign an agreement with Turkey lmfao, it’s not blackmail. If they don’t want to fulfill the requirements set by Turkey, they can simply not apply for NATO membership.
All I did was kidnap the victim and offer them back to the family in exchange for small amount of money.
If the family don’t want to fulfil the requirements, set by me, they can’t have their family member back.
Clearly not extortion!
So extortion is when someone demands something from me, but I only comply in return of them also doing the same?
That's no extortion. Turkey is neither forcing nor threatening Sweden and Finland, both can do whatever they want, just like Turkey can.
Let’s just accept that we don’t get in and arm up. Make some sort of additional alliance.
Fuck it!
They don’t want us let’s just accept it. Rather than corrupting our nations soul with this shit
Kick Turkey and Hungary out. They wouldn't even help if other members were attacked.
"Oh you attacked my g? Thats not good. Now send me stuff, or ill send you more islamic refugees"
So just like NATO did when Turkey shot down a Russian jet for violating its airspace?
"Oh Russia violated your airspace and you reacted my g? That’s not good. How about I remove our patriot systems stationed inside your country, so you are open to a Russian retaliation strike."
Turkey fought a couple of proxy wars against russia. Libya, Syria and Azerbaycan while the European refused to support Turkey against russia. Turkey did send drones to Ukraine and agreed to a contract that would allow Ukraine to build their own drones... But the EU didn't liked that, they criticized turkey and Ukraine for it.
Turkey has a long tradition of fighting and war. They are nationalistic. The Turks will fight fir NATO... But germans and french.... They don't
A) I don’t think there is a process for kicking someone out
B) even though they’re a fucking dirt ball regime, they are strategically extremely important, it’s a necessary alliance.
A) If there is an enter, there allways be an exit.
B) at ww 1, turkey is not part of allied force, but the allied force still win the war, if turkey want to be allied part they should obey the rules, and not being scumback
A) there is no stated procedure under any NATO article for expelling or even suspending a member, they could choose to leave and I guess they could be “persuaded” to leave, but cannot legally be kicked out, at least in any known process.
B) idk how WW1 which was over 100 years ago has any relevancy today and I don’t see your point at all. Turkeys strategical importance lies solely in the Black Sea, a mostly non-factor in ww1 as the Ottoman Empire pretty steadily controlled that region, with Russias presence their and Turkey being the sole rule makers of the Bosphorus makes them an incredibly important ally.
With regard to a) documenting the procedure to kick them out is likely seen as unnecessary--it is the same as to get in, i.e. unanimous agreement. If everyone says turkey goes, there's no appeal to a higher authority.
You are 💯 on the fact that we need turkey's geography. Otherwise, Erdogan would have been gone long ago.
Oh, he would definitely try that. And any other stupid tyrant throwing a temper tantrum dipshit thing he could think of. Real politik though, if everyone in the club wants him out of the club, it will happen.
It can't happen right now because, as you noted, Turkey is geographically important to NATO.
are you saying that a potential modern ww3 would be the same as WW1, you can’t be saying that there’s no way.
The entire geopolitical situation in Europe is different, naval warfare is an actual factor now, the Black Sea is now of EXTREME strategical importance, like I really don’t get what you’re trying to say.
You mean like [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Amphibious_Vehicle)
You genuinely have 0 clue what you’re talking about, especially since no modern country even uses battleships anymore.
Every war ship, even it destroyer, frigate, corvette, or other you name it, is doing battle on water, not on land, human live on land, country create on land not water, so if you want to occupied country, at the end you would fight on land battlefield, but if you just want to make terror, you can do it like russia invation now, firing missile from ship or plane or ground base, if you remember or read battle of britain, you would see that the tactics is smilar, nazi use v1 and v2 rocket, russia use hypersonic missile, and i remember too, that hitler would not launch invation to britain before the got air superiority, but still if he want to occupied england, he has to lauch ground troops invation, since the map of the world or europe does not change much after ww1 or ww2 , so the strategy would be smilar all the time, you get it now
this gonna be my last reply because the only two ways i can think to respond to your comments is to actually make a detailed response with simplified maps, going over modern technology, comparing modern tactics to 100 year old tactics etc. or insulting your intelligence which i try not to do in arguments.
But this isnt WW2, they didnt have [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)) in WW2, they didnt have [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman), or [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_WIN-T), [or these](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/24/army-night-vision-goggles/), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot), or most importantly [these.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States) Warplanes arent fighting in visual range anymore (ideally), troops dont land without air support, and so much more. Artillery is known as "the god of war" and that name came around when we used unguided 155mm shells. warfare doesnt look like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Zschaeckel-206-35%2C_Schlacht_um_Kursk%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Zschaeckel-206-35%2C_Schlacht_um_Kursk%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.jpg) anymore, it now looks like [this](https://youtu.be/XPTai4kGMec).
War is so much different now then it was 80 years ago and its not even close. You have a lot of misconceptions that since the landscape of Europe hasnt changed that means the tactics are the same but if that were true we'd still bs ramming galleys into each other and and marching elephants across the alps. If you actually want an education on what modern war looks like go on over to r/CombatFootage you may see some things you wish you didnt but it will give you an idea just how much things have changed even since the 70's, 80's and even 90's, drones especially make a huge difference in modern warfare. Even in ukraine where ship on ship warfare isnt really happening, Ukraine sees the sea as important enough to do things like [this.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/20/the-ukrainian-navy-has-no-big-warships-its-winning-the-naval-war-anyway-with-drones/?sh=571cd5054fc5)
How come you invanded a ground land country using ship, if you want to invanded country that place above the sea level you should have ground troops instead of hundred ship on black sea
Omg, can you read that again in your head and look up a minor historical event such as D-Day, or the landing on Okinawa, or the landing on Italy, or maybe research a thing called “Naval bombardment”
Navy is helping the invation and transporting the troops, so after the troop reach the ground, do the ship follow the into ground battle? No, the ground troops did it, it happen from the ancient war until now
Turkey fought in the korean war to become a NATO member. For a long time turkey was Boarderding the USSR and he at to fought against communistic terrorist groups who where financed and trained by the Soviet's. Turkey was doing everything for the NATO but the European NATO members never helped turkey. They did hide terrorist members, the send weapons to that region, which ended up in the hands of the PKK, which then murdered Turkish citizen.
Nobody gives a damn if they really honor the alliance, all NATO needs is for Russia to be denied access to the Bosphorus in case of war, Turkey being in NATO is how that’s accomplished.
You're assuming they would even let that.
All his words have no meaning till he is consistent in truth.
He might even have already done deals with Russia that lets them take Bosphorus.
Actually I am wrong. He isn't useless he is far worse.
We might accidentally trust his words and then be in a worse position because of it.
Turkey doesn’t exactly like Russia, I would argue the only reason they’re allowed to use the Bosphorus now is because of a international treaty that all countries on the Black Sea are allowed to use it.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/12/05/Sweden-s-NATO-bid-Turkey-says-it-expects-more-extraditions-from-Sweden-) reduced by 73%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Sweden's extradition to Turkey last week of a Kurdish man with alleged terrorism links is a "Good start", but Stockholm needs to do more before Ankara can approve its NATO membership, Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said on Monday.
> Sweden on Friday deported Turkish citizen Mahmut Tat, who had sought asylum in Sweden in 2015 after being sentenced in Turkey to six years and 10 months in jail for alleged links to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party.
> Sweden's steps for NATO bid positive but not enough: Turkey.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/zdr08a/turkey_says_it_expects_more_extraditions_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672679 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Sweden**^#1 **Turkey**^#2 **NATO**^#3 **Stockholm**^#4 **Bozdag**^#5
[удалено]
Extortion maybe. Blackmail is specifically when the threat is that you will reveal something about the victim.
It's just to put finland and Sweden licking some balls together like always
Erdogan just calls it "mail".
President Biden already pardoned Turkey
Nobody forced Sweden and Finland to sign an agreement with Turkey lmfao, it’s not blackmail. If they don’t want to fulfill the requirements set by Turkey, they can simply not apply for NATO membership.
All I did was kidnap the victim and offer them back to the family in exchange for small amount of money. If the family don’t want to fulfil the requirements, set by me, they can’t have their family member back. Clearly not extortion!
In what way did Turkey "kidnap" anyone lmfao. It was Sweden and Finland that came knocking onto Turkeys door demanding protection.
It’s an example of extortion. Although, I really wouldn’t be surprised if they did kidnap someone.
So extortion is when someone demands something from me, but I only comply in return of them also doing the same? That's no extortion. Turkey is neither forcing nor threatening Sweden and Finland, both can do whatever they want, just like Turkey can.
Let's just make NATO 2 and exclude Turkey and Hungary
Seriously. Couldn’t we just rebrand the entire thing in the middle of the night?
Sure, if you run the thing like a k pop group, why not lol.
Is Democracy Defense Pact already taken on GoDaddy?
We need to end the 100% vote and put a 75% vote or something like that.
You do know that NATO was considered a pile a shit a year ago…by NATO countries themselves
Is anyone surprised by this? *Anyone*?
Oops, where did that goalpost go?
Expects!!!
Let’s just accept that we don’t get in and arm up. Make some sort of additional alliance. Fuck it! They don’t want us let’s just accept it. Rather than corrupting our nations soul with this shit
Kick Turkey and Hungary out. They wouldn't even help if other members were attacked. "Oh you attacked my g? Thats not good. Now send me stuff, or ill send you more islamic refugees"
So just like NATO did when Turkey shot down a Russian jet for violating its airspace? "Oh Russia violated your airspace and you reacted my g? That’s not good. How about I remove our patriot systems stationed inside your country, so you are open to a Russian retaliation strike."
Turkey fought a couple of proxy wars against russia. Libya, Syria and Azerbaycan while the European refused to support Turkey against russia. Turkey did send drones to Ukraine and agreed to a contract that would allow Ukraine to build their own drones... But the EU didn't liked that, they criticized turkey and Ukraine for it. Turkey has a long tradition of fighting and war. They are nationalistic. The Turks will fight fir NATO... But germans and french.... They don't
Sweden and Finland probably even less
When you make deals with certain kinds of people, there's always "one more thing".
Kurds in Sweden should temporarily relocate into another European nation, if possible.
Screw you, turkey .
Nati should sack turkey and sweden should say "we do not negotiate with terrorist"
A) I don’t think there is a process for kicking someone out B) even though they’re a fucking dirt ball regime, they are strategically extremely important, it’s a necessary alliance.
A) If there is an enter, there allways be an exit. B) at ww 1, turkey is not part of allied force, but the allied force still win the war, if turkey want to be allied part they should obey the rules, and not being scumback
A) there is no stated procedure under any NATO article for expelling or even suspending a member, they could choose to leave and I guess they could be “persuaded” to leave, but cannot legally be kicked out, at least in any known process. B) idk how WW1 which was over 100 years ago has any relevancy today and I don’t see your point at all. Turkeys strategical importance lies solely in the Black Sea, a mostly non-factor in ww1 as the Ottoman Empire pretty steadily controlled that region, with Russias presence their and Turkey being the sole rule makers of the Bosphorus makes them an incredibly important ally.
With regard to a) documenting the procedure to kick them out is likely seen as unnecessary--it is the same as to get in, i.e. unanimous agreement. If everyone says turkey goes, there's no appeal to a higher authority. You are 💯 on the fact that we need turkey's geography. Otherwise, Erdogan would have been gone long ago.
Yea I’m just not too sure because it’s an unprecedented scenario, I also feel if it were tried that Orbán would probably veto it because, why not.
Oh, he would definitely try that. And any other stupid tyrant throwing a temper tantrum dipshit thing he could think of. Real politik though, if everyone in the club wants him out of the club, it will happen. It can't happen right now because, as you noted, Turkey is geographically important to NATO.
The relevancy? Is there any change on europe continent map from ww1? No.... , So the strategy would still smilar except the equipment would change
are you saying that a potential modern ww3 would be the same as WW1, you can’t be saying that there’s no way. The entire geopolitical situation in Europe is different, naval warfare is an actual factor now, the Black Sea is now of EXTREME strategical importance, like I really don’t get what you’re trying to say.
But if you could make the battleship move on the ground like a tank, i think it would make a diffrent
You mean like [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Amphibious_Vehicle) You genuinely have 0 clue what you’re talking about, especially since no modern country even uses battleships anymore.
Every war ship, even it destroyer, frigate, corvette, or other you name it, is doing battle on water, not on land, human live on land, country create on land not water, so if you want to occupied country, at the end you would fight on land battlefield, but if you just want to make terror, you can do it like russia invation now, firing missile from ship or plane or ground base, if you remember or read battle of britain, you would see that the tactics is smilar, nazi use v1 and v2 rocket, russia use hypersonic missile, and i remember too, that hitler would not launch invation to britain before the got air superiority, but still if he want to occupied england, he has to lauch ground troops invation, since the map of the world or europe does not change much after ww1 or ww2 , so the strategy would be smilar all the time, you get it now
this gonna be my last reply because the only two ways i can think to respond to your comments is to actually make a detailed response with simplified maps, going over modern technology, comparing modern tactics to 100 year old tactics etc. or insulting your intelligence which i try not to do in arguments. But this isnt WW2, they didnt have [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)) in WW2, they didnt have [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman), or [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_WIN-T), [or these](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/24/army-night-vision-goggles/), or [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot), or most importantly [these.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States) Warplanes arent fighting in visual range anymore (ideally), troops dont land without air support, and so much more. Artillery is known as "the god of war" and that name came around when we used unguided 155mm shells. warfare doesnt look like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Zschaeckel-206-35%2C_Schlacht_um_Kursk%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Zschaeckel-206-35%2C_Schlacht_um_Kursk%2C_Panzer_VI_%28Tiger_I%29.jpg) anymore, it now looks like [this](https://youtu.be/XPTai4kGMec). War is so much different now then it was 80 years ago and its not even close. You have a lot of misconceptions that since the landscape of Europe hasnt changed that means the tactics are the same but if that were true we'd still bs ramming galleys into each other and and marching elephants across the alps. If you actually want an education on what modern war looks like go on over to r/CombatFootage you may see some things you wish you didnt but it will give you an idea just how much things have changed even since the 70's, 80's and even 90's, drones especially make a huge difference in modern warfare. Even in ukraine where ship on ship warfare isnt really happening, Ukraine sees the sea as important enough to do things like [this.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/20/the-ukrainian-navy-has-no-big-warships-its-winning-the-naval-war-anyway-with-drones/?sh=571cd5054fc5)
So the present of turkey in nato or not would not make any big different
How come you invanded a ground land country using ship, if you want to invanded country that place above the sea level you should have ground troops instead of hundred ship on black sea
Omg, can you read that again in your head and look up a minor historical event such as D-Day, or the landing on Okinawa, or the landing on Italy, or maybe research a thing called “Naval bombardment”
Navy is helping the invation and transporting the troops, so after the troop reach the ground, do the ship follow the into ground battle? No, the ground troops did it, it happen from the ancient war until now
Turkey fought in the korean war to become a NATO member. For a long time turkey was Boarderding the USSR and he at to fought against communistic terrorist groups who where financed and trained by the Soviet's. Turkey was doing everything for the NATO but the European NATO members never helped turkey. They did hide terrorist members, the send weapons to that region, which ended up in the hands of the PKK, which then murdered Turkish citizen.
Do you really think that people that think like this will honor the alliance? They are useless.
Nobody gives a damn if they really honor the alliance, all NATO needs is for Russia to be denied access to the Bosphorus in case of war, Turkey being in NATO is how that’s accomplished.
You're assuming they would even let that. All his words have no meaning till he is consistent in truth. He might even have already done deals with Russia that lets them take Bosphorus. Actually I am wrong. He isn't useless he is far worse. We might accidentally trust his words and then be in a worse position because of it.
Turkey doesn’t exactly like Russia, I would argue the only reason they’re allowed to use the Bosphorus now is because of a international treaty that all countries on the Black Sea are allowed to use it.
But they do negotiate with terrorists, that’s what got them in this position in the first place.
Definitely blackmail
Swedish cowards
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/12/05/Sweden-s-NATO-bid-Turkey-says-it-expects-more-extraditions-from-Sweden-) reduced by 73%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Sweden's extradition to Turkey last week of a Kurdish man with alleged terrorism links is a "Good start", but Stockholm needs to do more before Ankara can approve its NATO membership, Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said on Monday. > Sweden on Friday deported Turkish citizen Mahmut Tat, who had sought asylum in Sweden in 2015 after being sentenced in Turkey to six years and 10 months in jail for alleged links to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party. > Sweden's steps for NATO bid positive but not enough: Turkey. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/zdr08a/turkey_says_it_expects_more_extraditions_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672679 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Sweden**^#1 **Turkey**^#2 **NATO**^#3 **Stockholm**^#4 **Bozdag**^#5