Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Turkey resumes talks with Sweden and Finland over their bids to join NATO | DW News" video.

  1.  @Q_QQ_Q  Don't be silly. The EU is not NATO and no amount of stalling is going to make the EU let Turkey in. Besides, it's Turkey that's in a pickle because the US is refusing to sell it F-16s and upgrades to its existing F-16 fleet unless Turkey starts behaving.
    4
  2. Not only that, we must also thank Putin for a renewed effort to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. I'm sure the megalomaniac will console himself in prison that he and he alone averted climate apocalypse.
    3
  3.  @Q_QQ_Q  When has Turkey stated that it will ratify the NATO accession of Sweden and Finland only if Turkey gets to join the EU? You're a fantasist.
    2
  4. So, Russia would like to treat St. Petersburg to a lethal dose of radiation that will inevitably blow over. Curious.
    1
  5. Hungary is throwing its toys out of the pram because Finnish and Swedish MEPs have said nasty things about them, along with the rest of the MEPs. It's clear that Hungary's problem is with democracy, and in more ways than one.
    1
  6. Turkey actually makes NATO less democratic. Poland and Hungary are guilty of same.
    1
  7.  @sampohonkala4195  You're wrong there. Finnish law stipulates that violating religious peace is a punishable offence. The burning of a book held sacred by a religious community would amount to that.
    1
  8.  @Q_QQ_Q  Erdogan knows full well that Turkey won't meet the Copenhagen criteria while he's in charge.
    1
  9.  @Q_QQ_Q  I asked you a question: when has Turkey stated that it will ratify the NATO accession of Sweden and Finland only if Turkey gets to join the EU? There's nothing to comprehend here. There's you putting up or shutting up.
    1
  10.  @Q_QQ_Q  So now you're admitting that you made it all up?
    1
  11. It's practically a done deal. Turkey desperately needs both new F-16s and upgrades to its older ones. US Congress is not going to approve their sale unless Sweden and Finland are let into NATO. Erdogan is a bazaar merchant, he knows when to give in.
    1
  12.  @farmerbob139  Aw, is that all you've got?
    1
  13.  @farmerbob139  You're repeating yourself.
    1
  14.  @farmerbob139  Your vocabulary is very limited.
    1
  15.  @farmerbob139  Russian troll it is.
    1
  16.  @mwfmtnman  Nope, he's got it right. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, secret addendum. The robbers started by divvying up Poland, and that's how WW2 started.
    1
  17. NATO members have integrated their defence so that they complement one another. Should they act outside of NATO, they'd miss out on many capabilities. This is especially true for NATO's smaller members. The Baltic countries, for instances, lack combat aircraft. Others lack heavy transport aircraft, or share them with other NATO partners. Even the US Armed Forces have deficiencies in certain areas, like sub and mine hunting.
    1
  18. The outcome of a NATO referendum would've been a foregone conclusion. You haven't got much confidence in parliamentary democracy, have you?
    1
  19.  @duncansmith7562  Both Sweden and Finland were in Afghanistan. All in all, they suffered 7 fatalities over a time span of twenty years. Speaking of blundering and cannon fodder, don't you think their modest sacrifice stands in stark contrast to the 150,000 casualties suffered by Russia in Ukraine in just one year?
    1
  20.  @duncansmith7562  OK, I forgot about your intellectual disability. But remember, you're not alone -- it's a common affliction among Putin fanboys. Sweden and Finland haven't provided cannon fodder in any conflict in recent history, WW2 included. Educate yourself for a change.
    1
  21.  @duncansmith7562  Oh, I suddenly realised who you were. Had I done so sooner, I wouldn't have bothered replying. You scream Putin troll. Interestingly, you're claiming that you never associated Finns with cannon fodder, yet you explicitly do so a few sentences later. Which one is it? Context eludes you as well. Finland's war-time casualties were 4 to 5 times fewer than those it inflicted on the USSR. Stalin pissed away more than a million soldiers for very little gain. You're scoring an own goal with your cannon fodder claims. You're expecting me to comment on future casualties incurred in a future NATO op. Sure, there are casualties in war. Collective defence means giving and taking. The world will be better for it.
    1
  22.  @duncansmith7562  Your short-term memory must be shot if you don't remember what you wrote two sentences earlier. You're trying to redefine the term 'cannon fodder'. The established definition fits the the Soviets perfectly, but not the Finns, who fought for hearth and home. The casualty ratio speaks for itself. I'm not American, so you have to ask one if Afghanistan was worth it. For good measure, ask a Soviet veteran as well. I used to visit a barber shop owned by one. He wasn't convinced.
    1
  23.  @duncansmith7562  Soviets soldiers didn't have hearths and homes in Finland, dum-dum.
    1
  24.  @duncansmith7562  Your logic is so off. How did the Soviets defend hearth and home by attacking Finland? Your insults are kindergarten level.
    1