What is behind Ankara's unwillingness to agree to the "Scandinavian expansion" of NATO
The accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO is blocked by Turkey, which categorically does not agree to this arrangement. The main obstacle is the Kurdish issue and the existing restrictions on the supply of weapons to Ankara. However, there are other, no less compelling reasons. Hamshahri writes about them.
Turkey's categorical disagreement with the entry into the North Atlantic Alliance of two Scandinavian states, Finland and Sweden, is most often associated with the presence of Kurdish fighters on the territory of both countries. They enjoy patronage there, which Ankara has always strongly objected to. However, this is far from the only reason for Turkey's refusal to approve the entry of two Northern European states into the NATO bloc.
Three high-ranking Turkish government officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because, according to Turkish law, they are not authorized to communicate with the media, voiced the main motives on the basis of which the Turkish government does not yet see it possible to approve the application submitted by Sweden and Finland to join NATO.
Armed separatism of the Kurds
The Kurdish issue has always been covered in great detail and in detail in the world media. In the very first days, when Turkey only announced its objections to the accession of the two northern states to NATO, the obvious reason for these objections was precisely the presentation of the Nordic countries as states that provide shelter for those whom Turkey considers terrorists. Ankara argued that it is unacceptable that a country intending to become a member of NATO would help terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Whenever the issue of terrorism in Turkey comes on the agenda, first of all we are talking about some Kurdish military organization, the main and leading and most famous of which is the so-called PKK (or PKK — Kurdistan Workers' Party).
There seems to be no disagreement between Turkey and its partners in the NATO bloc regarding the nature of the group's activities inside Turkey itself — which, of course, both Ankara and Brussels consider terrorist. But a completely different issue is those Kurdish groups that are located outside Turkey, including both PKK branches and the so—called Kurdish self-Defense units. Western countries not only officially recognized them as allies during the war against ISIS* in Northern Iraq and Syria, but also regarded them as partners who enjoyed any support and assistance, including the provision of the latest weapons.
At the moment, Ankara's main requirement for the two Scandinavian countries is not only the recognition of the PKK with all its branches and branches as a terrorist group, but also the provision of counteraction to the activities of this group on the territory of these states. The latter just looks the most unacceptable for both Helsinki and Stockholm.
Lifting restrictions on the supply of weapons
High-ranking Turkish officials demand from Finland and Sweden, as well as from those countries that are already members of NATO, to lift restrictions on the supply of weapons to Turkey, which were introduced in 2019. Then Ankara initiated a military invasion of Syria in order to put an end to the activities of the Kurdish self-defense units near the Syrian-Turkish border. Turkey has begun to interpret the activities of these detachments not as a fight against ISIS, but as armed support for the terrorist activities of Kurdish units on Turkish territory proper.
According to Turkish officials, Ankara considers unacceptable military alliances and partnerships with those countries that restrict or in some way hinder arms deals, including direct supplies of all types of weapons to Turkey. This position was expressed, in particular, by Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who stated that any arms embargo "contradicts the spirit of the military alliance."
"Mistakes" and lessons from the past
Turkey has finally recognized the return of Greece to NATO, which occurred in the 80s of the last century, but at the same time considers this step a "mistake". It should be recalled that Ankara has long had claims against Athens in connection with the armed conflict that broke out in 1974 in northern Cyprus, between Greek Cypriots and the Turkish minority who also lived in this part of the island. Ankara, in particular, demanded that Athens stop its armed support to the Greek Cypriots who fought against the creation of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the northern part of the island. Athens, in turn, in retaliation to Ankara, regularly voted against the expansion of Turkey's cooperation with EU countries, including the approval of Turkey's application to join the European Union.
Turkey believed that the inevitable consequence of Greece's return to NATO would be Ankara's consent to the claims that Southern Cyprus has regarding the settlement plan of the territorial dispute between both parts of the island, and also that Ankara would have to agree with all the claims of Southern Cyprus and Greece to the borders in the waters of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas.
Taking into account all these "mistakes" and lessons of the past, Turkish officials stated that it would be unreasonable and illogical to agree to the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO if the latter continue to cooperate with Kurdish armed groups and do not express solidarity with Turkey in countering the activities of pro-Kurdish formations and structures that Ankara considers terrorist.
However, in addition to the "lessons of the past" and historical analogies, there are other issues that Ankara sees as an obstacle to the accession of both Scandinavian states to NATO. The country intends to make them the subject of political bargaining in exchange for its agreement to recognize the applications of Helsinki and Stockholm.
In particular, Ankara demands from Washington the immediate lifting of all economic sanctions imposed by the United States against Turkey in connection with purchases from Russia of the latest weapons systems, including S-400 MANPADS. Turkey also wants to return the program for the acquisition of American F-35 fighter jets, from which Washington withdrew unilaterally. There are other programs for the acquisition of weapons, from which Ankara has also been suspended and to which it also seeks to return. Turkey also considers the latter circumstance as a condition for reconsidering its position on the accession of the two Scandinavian countries to NATO. But at the same time, Ankara does not intend to give any guarantees of the termination of its military-technical cooperation with Moscow.
There are other circumstances that experts and observers point out and that should not be discounted either. This, in particular, is the nature of friendly relations between Putin and Erdogan, which Ankara is clearly not ready to sacrifice if Finland and Sweden agree to join NATO. This is also Ankara's very moderate position on the conflict in Ukraine and the Russian military special operation, its readiness to mediate in negotiations between Moscow and Kiev. Ankara probably fears that Russia will cease to perceive its mediation efforts if it agrees to expand NATO at the expense of the two Scandinavian states. Turkey is worried that its ability to build an independent course of relations with Moscow will suffer if it follows the lead of Brussels and Washington on the issue of Finland and Sweden joining the Alliance. And such fears do not seem to be in vain.
Another circumstance of an internal political nature is also important: Ankara's principled position on the Kurdish issue at the international level can bring the current Turkish government great support from patriotic and nationalist political forces inside the country.
Special report prepared by the Mir/Europa group
* a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation