>NATO diplomats hope that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will approve Sweden's membership if he is confirmed as the next head of state following the Turkish elections next month.
Awkward position to be in for NATO, since Erdogan has been a circuitous partner to work with.
I think it's a pretty clear-cut view forward from the turkish position: deny Sweden's ascension to NATO unless they give up all PKK members, which should be feasible since they (only) recently declared it to be the terrorist organization it is. It's really shameful that they did not do this until recently, so Turkey denying them previously is not surprising and actually understandable.
What i want to add is that this position is gonna be taken by turkey regardless of whether Erdogan wins the next elections, which i'm very doubtful of ( remember he campaigned on earthquake preventions, which given recent events will hurt him politically).
Sweden will do what i've mentioned because they cannot afford not to.
What's not clear-cut tho is "who is a PKK member", because you know, terrorist organisations don't have very well organised membership program and an audit.
In Turkey, anyone can be a terrorist. There's even this legal concept of "aiding terrorist organisation without being member of it" and aid can be something simple as writing article which support their cause and the "supporting their cause" definition often can be very broad too because you might be accused of supporting a terrorist organisation due to something like advocating for the right of learning the mother thong in schools. You can easily go to jail for supporting something like that if the Kurdish political movement demands it too(terrorists want it, if you want it too then you are helping the terrorists).
All the issues arise due to the difference of terror definitions between Turkey and more liberal countries. In Sweden you can march with the poster of Abdullah Ocalan, the founder of the terrorist organisation and in Turkey you might be accused of supporting terrorist if you say Mr. Ocalan by mistake(you are expected to parrot something like "baby killer" or at least "head terrorist").
Another problem with the Turkish stance is that it's inconsistent. This terrorist organisation is not formed in a vacuum, it is a response to oppression on the Kurds by the Turkish state and the politicians can dial down the terrorist accusation and talk about "Making mothers stop crying and discussing the issues and finding a violence-free solution" if it fits their current political position.
10 Years ago Erdogan was the champion of the Kurdish rights(the original oppressors are the secular nationalists, in an attempt of nation building. They oppressed islamist too, so at that time Erdogan was a freedom fighter) and was on a brink of Good Friday like resolution on the issue when fractions of the opposition said that he was a traitor and terror supporter. Today the roles are completely reversed, Erdogan is the hardcore nationalist and the opposition wants a resolution and dialog on the Kurdish issues and the PKK associated but pacifist political movement supports the opposition, which is probably why Erdogan is against "Sweden joining NATO unless gives us the PKK terrorists". The elections are in less than a month, Sweden will most likely join NATO once they are no longer useful to the Erdogan's propaganda or the opposition wins the elections.
I hope Sweden never bows to the Turkish demands because that would mean reducing the Swedish freedoms of speech to Turkish level and I promise you, the Turkish freedom of speech sucks.
Sweden is still ruled by law. The cabinet can't just order a random list of who-ever Erdogan wants this week to be extradited to Turkey. You have to rip up constitutional laws to do such flagrant violations of human and citizen rights, and for that you need 2 really hard core fascist parliament majorities in succession. Not gonna happen.
This is a myth. Sweden violates its own laws and has kidnapped people and sent them to torture chambers in what is called extraordinary renditions. Swedes openly acknowledge this. Their rules apply selectively as is the case all over the world. Just some believe in the smokescreen.
That's really not productive reasoning and it seems like a bit of an extremist viewpoint. With your line of reasoning there are no countries where law is applied because in all countries there has been occurrences where law was broken. This is typically not how "rule of law" is interpreted - as an on/off switch for an entire country and for all time.
If we take Agiza as an example, he was illegaly extradited from Sweden. When it was discovered, there was somewhat of an outrage, he was given money for damages (much by Swedish standards) and later granted residency.
So yes, Swedish government f-ked up at that occasion. That obviously does not mean that because of that, Swedish courts will now forever auto-accept any requests from turkey to have people extradited despite no proof of crimes. That's not what rule of law means.
In fact, you can see proof of this today - Swedish courts are mostly rejecting requests from Turkey and the people still wlka free in Sweden.
> since they (only) recently declared it to be the terrorist organization it is.
PKK has been classified as a terrorist organization in Sweden since 1984. It was the second country to classify it as a terrorist organization, only after Turkey.
Wasn't it even rumored for a while that PKK shot the prime minister Olof Palme in retaliation?
That being said I think Sweden has been a bit weak on Kurdish terrorist supporters recently. Most (at least Scandinavian) left wing parties have a soft spot for leftish terrorists. I can see why, they are usually oppressed underdogs.
It also helps that PKK are ostensibly fighting a series of authoritarian govs combined with the fact westerners are shielded by the natural disconnection and "othering" of the consequences of political violence happening to citizens in a far-off country they have no personal connection to. It makes it easier to not care they've killed hundreds of civilians, heavily recruited child soldiers, etc when you can more easily focus on the group being founded by a political-prisoner who flirts with trendy radical academia-friendly economics.
Plenty of normal people are victim to this sort of flirting with ideas rather than confronting the reality on the ground. You see the same sort of thing with people who (or at least used to) defend Russia for being tough, when in IRL it was mostly a persuasive sheen on top of a cheap mafia state.
The PKK terrorists inflict bombs and child rapes and kidnappings outside the white world. Hence the “tolerance”. A report by the UN of their child kidnappings and rapes in Syria, Iraq and southern Turkey:
Your link doesn't purport to show child kidnappings, etc. It says they recruit child soldiers, but it doesn't say those children are slaves.
Also, it's not as much who is targeted by the attacks as why. The Kurds are under genocidal attack on three sides and have a lot more global sympathy than other groups.
Turkey. Both Kurmanji and Sorani were banned in public use From 1982 to 1991. Using either still carries dangers. Distributing pamphlets in Kurdish can get you accused of aiding the PKK.
I'm still hoping for de-escalation, but frankly it feels like we could easily have an incident that causes things to spiral out of control, a la the start of WWI.
I want to think the NATO countries are wise enough to not start WW3 if they get an excuse. If a fighter jet or something gets downed, it'd be in the interests of everyone to play it down.
On the one hand, you prevent Trump winning and maybe write some debt down.
On the other hand, you know, war with a nuclear power with plausible escalation scenarios where 'who won the presidency' and 'who owes whom money' become utterly irrelevant questions.
The DoS isn't that stupid. But the conspiracy media producing this FUD is.
> On the one hand, you prevent Trump winning and maybe write some debt down.
You don't just write down some debt. You default on all sovereign debt and introduce a brand new monetary system, entirely digital so that everything can be tracked.
The timing is better since they get more back for their buck, similar to how they scheduled Trump's hearing for December at the start of the campaign season, rather than as soon as possible. It gives them more time to prepare, and to do military exercises. War requires planning, you can't just flip a switch and go to war.
So what would be the best strategy for a citizen to profit from this looming scenario? Asking in good faith. What is your strategy to get the most out of it? What can I do to take home as much as possible?
Tangible assets will survive the transition to the next monetary system as they can be revalued. Government debt will go to zero. I'm not sure that this is a get rich opportunity, rather a try-not-to-lose-your-life-savings event.
> Tangible assets will survive the transition to the next monetary system as they can be revalued.
Assuming “the next monetary system” retains the same property system, whhich it might, or might not, and assuming not only that the basic system is the same but that there isn’t a one-time compulsory change of ownership of the assets in question, which is also possible.
Of course, the idea that the US Government is seeking WWIII to prevent the reinstallation of the previous President and install a new global financial system under the IMF and UN is, well, beyond ridiculous, but if I was insane enough to believe such a paranoid fever dream, I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about.
> I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about.
It would be more like a return to feudalism, which was the system in place before capitalism. The barter system becomes relevant again.
I thought the US can already print as much money as they want without fear of soaring inflation due to $ being the global reserve currency. So why don't they just print more dollars and pay back their debts?
> MMT was delt a massive blow by the current inflation issue....
MMT literally argues that the monetary/fiscal division is artificial, and that the only constraint on fiscal policy is the monetary impact of net spending in the context of whatever traditional “monetary” policy is pursued, when you operate in your own fiat.
There being a monetary impact of either net spending or traditional monetary policy is not a blow to MMT.
> I thought the US can already print as much money as they want without fear of soaring inflation due to $ being the global reserve currency.
No, that’s never been the case. If it was, loose monetary policy to prevent incipient deflation (which is exactly causing inflation compared to the status quo ante) wouldn’t work (and, conversely, leaving the loose money policy engaged too long would lead to inflation, like it did after the brief COVID recession.)
The US having the ability to borrow in its own currency (which is closely related to the dollar being a global reserve currency, but slightly different) means that it always has the theoretical capacity to monetize the debt.
Normally I would say, “don’t be so sure”, but a book I just finished this weekend changed my mind: “The Guns of August”. I agree with you and do think the western world would be really hard to bring into a world war nowadays.
The amount the world and Europe in particular has changed since WWI is astounding. The entire world was deeply belligerent in a way that really surprised me and seems foreign to our modern sensibility. The only country of today that acts/thinks this way seems to be Russia, but leading up to WWI almost every single country in Europe was still planning for the conquest and destruction of their neighbors. Everyone (the major powers anyways) just assumed “ya, we’re gonna fight a huge multi-million person war and we’re gonna win.” I really don’t see that kind of belligerence in the minds of the world anymore.
Of course, there were some academics at the time of WWI saying the same thing, so…
People frequently reference WW3 in regards to Russia.
They can't get through eastern Ukraine. What world war? They have no means (and the mediocre means they had before the beginning of the war in Ukraine, have been slashed in half, to say nothing of vast degradation of still quasi-operating hardware), they'd get stomped by NATO within a month and throw the nuclear card on the table to end it.
Iran? Trivial to contain within their own borders, and we'd ignite an armed revolution by flowing massive amounts of weapons into Iran.
Belarus? Barely has a military worth mentioning in this context.
And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war.
> And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war.
You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it.
> You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it.
Why take back Taiwan when they can take back parts of Russia that Russia previously annexed?
Because Taiwan is a living thorn in the of China. It has democracy and a great economy. It's an alternative version of what it means to be chinese. Can't have that. What will they take from Russia, trees and rocks?
There is no scenario where NK has a reasonable shot of invading SK. There are, arguably, questions as to if NK's total petrolium reserves are enough to move their army to Seoul.
There is the potential for great misery and destruction from NK, but that's mostly due to the fact that a lot of well off urban areas are within NK artillery range.
I'm not so sure about Taiwan, either. Ukraine is right on the border of Russia, no shipping, no mountainous terrain, and no direct treaties with the US. China has already said in the event of a shooting war they'd consider US allies as legitimate targets, so a Taiwanese war means Japan, Australia, SK, and maybe NATO entering the fray. It would be an ugly, mountainous fight, possibly leading to a guerilla war / insurgency.
In 20 years after technology (chips, etc.) transfer back to the US there isn't really any reason for the US to give a shit. Why risk Ukraine-ing yourself when you can just let economic and demographic forces do it for you?
It's the nukes. They can't conquer Ukraine with infantry, but they can annihilate major cities in the US and Europe with nukes.
That's what everybody assumed all along that World War III meant. Russia's antiquated invasion of its neighbor is quaintly parochial compared to that... so long as that's where it stays. But if somebody, somewhere, gets an itchy trigger finger at just the wrong time, everybody everywhere becomes part of WWIII all at once.
That's why people keep referencing Russia and WWIII.
World War One was the 1914-18 show. I think you mean: WWIII or WW3.
There won't be a de-escalation of any sort because stupidity at national level knows few bounds. However there will be changes, probably unpleasant. I think that nuclear is unlikely because despite how despotic we might paint Russia right now - the Management are not completely hatstand (however Mr Putin appears to be exhibiting quite a few neuroses).
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best is indicated.
I think GP did mean WWI, where one event [1] set off a chain reaction of mutual defense assurances until first all European powers, then all major world powers were at war.
Two long-time-EU, never-Soviet members joining NATO is as nothingburger as it gets. If anything, they didn't join three decades ago because of the poor optics of incessant NATO expansion after USSR collapsed.
Now the cat's out of the bag, and there's no reason for them not to formally join the alliance (Ankara willing). But it doesn't change any strategic calculus.
Finland finally took a stand, how can it not be relevant? Russia gaining a huge NATO border. Finland and Sweden has always coordinated their defense. Sweden has top notch Air Force and great submarines in the Baltic Sea. Finland has thousands of modern artillery pieces. Russia can't lean on Finland anymore. Finland didn't want to join NATO for fear of provoking the "Bear".
If this is not a ripple in northern geopolitics, I don't know what is. I'll give you that it currently isn't as important if Sweden joins or not. Erdogan made the impossible possible - having Finland join before Sweden.
Nobody implied Finland is or was a satellite state. In fact, it's balancing act was so striking, it got its own name: Finlandisation. I'm sorry, I just lost faith in your honesty.
> Two long-time-EU, never-Soviet members joining NATO is as nothingburger as it gets
Finland has been occupied multiple times by Russia and ceded 10% of its land to the USSR in an attempt to make peace. Heck, some even argue that Finland did a "redo" of one of their parliamentary elections because the USSR didn't like the results. Joining NATO is a major departure from their many decades of attempting appeasement - it's far from a nothingburger.
It may be an even bigger deal inside Russia though: Putin directly triggered one of the very specific things Russia didn't want to have happen. This both arms his domestic critics and raises the pressure for him to deliver some sort of "win".
I was in Sweden on a train, and I got to talking to a guy who was in the Swedish army as a tank commander. Later I told someone about this, and he said, in mock horror, "What??? They have a tank?"
62 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadAwkward position to be in for NATO, since Erdogan has been a circuitous partner to work with.
Sweden will do what i've mentioned because they cannot afford not to.
In Turkey, anyone can be a terrorist. There's even this legal concept of "aiding terrorist organisation without being member of it" and aid can be something simple as writing article which support their cause and the "supporting their cause" definition often can be very broad too because you might be accused of supporting a terrorist organisation due to something like advocating for the right of learning the mother thong in schools. You can easily go to jail for supporting something like that if the Kurdish political movement demands it too(terrorists want it, if you want it too then you are helping the terrorists).
All the issues arise due to the difference of terror definitions between Turkey and more liberal countries. In Sweden you can march with the poster of Abdullah Ocalan, the founder of the terrorist organisation and in Turkey you might be accused of supporting terrorist if you say Mr. Ocalan by mistake(you are expected to parrot something like "baby killer" or at least "head terrorist").
Another problem with the Turkish stance is that it's inconsistent. This terrorist organisation is not formed in a vacuum, it is a response to oppression on the Kurds by the Turkish state and the politicians can dial down the terrorist accusation and talk about "Making mothers stop crying and discussing the issues and finding a violence-free solution" if it fits their current political position.
10 Years ago Erdogan was the champion of the Kurdish rights(the original oppressors are the secular nationalists, in an attempt of nation building. They oppressed islamist too, so at that time Erdogan was a freedom fighter) and was on a brink of Good Friday like resolution on the issue when fractions of the opposition said that he was a traitor and terror supporter. Today the roles are completely reversed, Erdogan is the hardcore nationalist and the opposition wants a resolution and dialog on the Kurdish issues and the PKK associated but pacifist political movement supports the opposition, which is probably why Erdogan is against "Sweden joining NATO unless gives us the PKK terrorists". The elections are in less than a month, Sweden will most likely join NATO once they are no longer useful to the Erdogan's propaganda or the opposition wins the elections.
I hope Sweden never bows to the Turkish demands because that would mean reducing the Swedish freedoms of speech to Turkish level and I promise you, the Turkish freedom of speech sucks.
In turkey saying the Kurds should have an independent state, via peaceful means makes you a terrorist.
In the US you can openly campaign for illegal succession and it’s fine as long as you don’t t start engaging in overt acts.
Kurds were prevented from having a state by the brits who made wholly sure that it would never happen (revenge against salahudin ayubi).
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
If we take Agiza as an example, he was illegaly extradited from Sweden. When it was discovered, there was somewhat of an outrage, he was given money for damages (much by Swedish standards) and later granted residency.
So yes, Swedish government f-ked up at that occasion. That obviously does not mean that because of that, Swedish courts will now forever auto-accept any requests from turkey to have people extradited despite no proof of crimes. That's not what rule of law means.
In fact, you can see proof of this today - Swedish courts are mostly rejecting requests from Turkey and the people still wlka free in Sweden.
PKK has been classified as a terrorist organization in Sweden since 1984. It was the second country to classify it as a terrorist organization, only after Turkey.
Your comment makes no sense.
That being said I think Sweden has been a bit weak on Kurdish terrorist supporters recently. Most (at least Scandinavian) left wing parties have a soft spot for leftish terrorists. I can see why, they are usually oppressed underdogs.
Plenty of normal people are victim to this sort of flirting with ideas rather than confronting the reality on the ground. You see the same sort of thing with people who (or at least used to) defend Russia for being tough, when in IRL it was mostly a persuasive sheen on top of a cheap mafia state.
https://menaaffairs.com/un-report-again-reveals-ypg-pkk-terr...
Also, it's not as much who is targeted by the attacks as why. The Kurds are under genocidal attack on three sides and have a lot more global sympathy than other groups.
(maybe rumor is correct word, just feels a bit odd to use in this context)
I'm still hoping for de-escalation, but frankly it feels like we could easily have an incident that causes things to spiral out of control, a la the start of WWI.
On the other hand, you know, war with a nuclear power with plausible escalation scenarios where 'who won the presidency' and 'who owes whom money' become utterly irrelevant questions.
The DoS isn't that stupid. But the conspiracy media producing this FUD is.
You don't just write down some debt. You default on all sovereign debt and introduce a brand new monetary system, entirely digital so that everything can be tracked.
Assuming “the next monetary system” retains the same property system, whhich it might, or might not, and assuming not only that the basic system is the same but that there isn’t a one-time compulsory change of ownership of the assets in question, which is also possible.
Of course, the idea that the US Government is seeking WWIII to prevent the reinstallation of the previous President and install a new global financial system under the IMF and UN is, well, beyond ridiculous, but if I was insane enough to believe such a paranoid fever dream, I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about.
It would be more like a return to feudalism, which was the system in place before capitalism. The barter system becomes relevant again.
They thought they could, then the Ghost of Hayak was heard laughing from Coast to Coast.
MMT literally argues that the monetary/fiscal division is artificial, and that the only constraint on fiscal policy is the monetary impact of net spending in the context of whatever traditional “monetary” policy is pursued, when you operate in your own fiat.
There being a monetary impact of either net spending or traditional monetary policy is not a blow to MMT.
No, that’s never been the case. If it was, loose monetary policy to prevent incipient deflation (which is exactly causing inflation compared to the status quo ante) wouldn’t work (and, conversely, leaving the loose money policy engaged too long would lead to inflation, like it did after the brief COVID recession.)
The US having the ability to borrow in its own currency (which is closely related to the dollar being a global reserve currency, but slightly different) means that it always has the theoretical capacity to monetize the debt.
The amount the world and Europe in particular has changed since WWI is astounding. The entire world was deeply belligerent in a way that really surprised me and seems foreign to our modern sensibility. The only country of today that acts/thinks this way seems to be Russia, but leading up to WWI almost every single country in Europe was still planning for the conquest and destruction of their neighbors. Everyone (the major powers anyways) just assumed “ya, we’re gonna fight a huge multi-million person war and we’re gonna win.” I really don’t see that kind of belligerence in the minds of the world anymore.
Of course, there were some academics at the time of WWI saying the same thing, so…
They can't get through eastern Ukraine. What world war? They have no means (and the mediocre means they had before the beginning of the war in Ukraine, have been slashed in half, to say nothing of vast degradation of still quasi-operating hardware), they'd get stomped by NATO within a month and throw the nuclear card on the table to end it.
Iran? Trivial to contain within their own borders, and we'd ignite an armed revolution by flowing massive amounts of weapons into Iran.
Belarus? Barely has a military worth mentioning in this context.
And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war.
You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it.
Why take back Taiwan when they can take back parts of Russia that Russia previously annexed?
There is the potential for great misery and destruction from NK, but that's mostly due to the fact that a lot of well off urban areas are within NK artillery range.
I'm not so sure about Taiwan, either. Ukraine is right on the border of Russia, no shipping, no mountainous terrain, and no direct treaties with the US. China has already said in the event of a shooting war they'd consider US allies as legitimate targets, so a Taiwanese war means Japan, Australia, SK, and maybe NATO entering the fray. It would be an ugly, mountainous fight, possibly leading to a guerilla war / insurgency.
In 20 years after technology (chips, etc.) transfer back to the US there isn't really any reason for the US to give a shit. Why risk Ukraine-ing yourself when you can just let economic and demographic forces do it for you?
That's what everybody assumed all along that World War III meant. Russia's antiquated invasion of its neighbor is quaintly parochial compared to that... so long as that's where it stays. But if somebody, somewhere, gets an itchy trigger finger at just the wrong time, everybody everywhere becomes part of WWIII all at once.
That's why people keep referencing Russia and WWIII.
World War One was the 1914-18 show. I think you mean: WWIII or WW3.
There won't be a de-escalation of any sort because stupidity at national level knows few bounds. However there will be changes, probably unpleasant. I think that nuclear is unlikely because despite how despotic we might paint Russia right now - the Management are not completely hatstand (however Mr Putin appears to be exhibiting quite a few neuroses).
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best is indicated.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Fr...
Now the cat's out of the bag, and there's no reason for them not to formally join the alliance (Ankara willing). But it doesn't change any strategic calculus.
If this is not a ripple in northern geopolitics, I don't know what is. I'll give you that it currently isn't as important if Sweden joins or not. Erdogan made the impossible possible - having Finland join before Sweden.
The standard for Russian satellite state is Belarus, not Finland.
Finland has been occupied multiple times by Russia and ceded 10% of its land to the USSR in an attempt to make peace. Heck, some even argue that Finland did a "redo" of one of their parliamentary elections because the USSR didn't like the results. Joining NATO is a major departure from their many decades of attempting appeasement - it's far from a nothingburger.
It may be an even bigger deal inside Russia though: Putin directly triggered one of the very specific things Russia didn't want to have happen. This both arms his domestic critics and raises the pressure for him to deliver some sort of "win".
Just joking, Swedes. You guys rock.