Comments by "William Davis" (@williamdavis9562) on "Turkey Hardens Stance on Finland, Sweden NATO Bids" video.

@Jason4275, Once you start punishing nations for using their rightful veto on matters you start to put the entire concept of the organization in doubt. This isn't a picnic, well over 30 nations giving legal pledges to join a war incase any member is attacked is no joke.
5
@Adamskyize I don't think they care.
3
@Adamskyize To be fair Finland isn't really doing anything to anyone. Also the only other nation up to the same shenanigans as Sweden is my country the United States. We can afford to do these things as we have the power not to deal with a backlash. Sweden on the other hand, well what in the world were they thinking lol
2
And how exactly would that serve anyone's interests?
2
@zjeee That was quite stupid of the Finns. From everything I've read it looks like Turkey is quite willing to lift the veto on Finland but is dead set against Sweden. By Finland saying take both or take none, they're essentially shutting the door to Nato on themselves.
2
@UltraCasualPenguin Finland is going to have to make a choice then. Stay intertwined with Sweden and be out of Nato or untwine from Sweden and be in Nato.
2
@UltraCasualPenguin Sweden can't make the "choice." It's not up to them if they get vetoed or not. Turkey is pretty clear that it will be vetoing Sweden flat out. They'll probably find support from a few other nations as well but it won't matter as only one veto is enough to stop this entire thing. Finland however has room to maneuver and get the veto lifted quite easily. Assuming it doesn't use the negotiating tactic of "both of us or none of us." Like I said due to the nature of what is going on Finland has a "choice" Sweden does not have such a luxury. So like you said, it is quite possible Sweden finds itself in conflict with Russia in the future without any other nations legally bound to help them. Makes you wonder if funding armed groups blowing up hospitals and schools was worth it.
2
@UltraCasualPenguin I could easily throw it right back on you about not understanding what democratic and independent means. It seems like an alien concept to you that a Nato government would be vetoing you because they have elections coming on the government is under loads of pressure from the public to not let Sweden in. Open your eyes my man. You can't explain yourself away with this one claiming democracy and independence because it would make you a hypocrite.
2
@Sean Crawford, ,as long as they won't be legally bound to protect a nation that also happens to be financing armed groups which blow up hospitals and schools in their nation, they're probably okay with anything that comes of this.
1
@Adamskyize Well regardless of what they thought or didn't think, they've put themselves in quite the pickle.
1
@Adamskyize This isn't really a pickle for Nato, this happens every time there is an enlargement. Greece held up a bunch of nation's entry for a long time because it wanted one of them to change their name. Germany scuttled Ukraine's initial bid to join. This list goes on and on, this is business as usual for Nato. It's Finland which is in the pickle. Do they stick with Sweden and get locked out of Nato? Or do they ditch Sweden and get under the protective blanket of Nato. That is the definition of a pickle.
1
@richardtyler3498 I'm not sure full on nationalism is a good road to go down but certainly a globalist government controlling everyone is much worse. There has to be a way to strike a balance between those two options.
1
@Robot Originalsson, Why don't Swedes have a say? Can't you simply put pressure on your government to not apply? Or have freedoms and democracy eroded to a point the government simply does as it pleases regardless what the people want?
1
@UltraCasualPenguin Ah there you go, when you have no arguments left try to make it personal. Someone doesn't have to be from Turkey or be Turkish to see the situation for what it is. The rest of your post is essentially all whataboutisms that completely and utterly ignore what we were debating. Because he gave Sweden a false sense of hope doesn't in any, way shape or form change the situation does it? You might also want to pay attention to the public pressure in that country on their government to not allow Sweden in. As I said earlier having some hospitals and schools blow up in your nation by groups financed by Sweden just MIGHT piss people off? The F-16 situation is pretty ridiculous, I'm from the United States and I can tell you we're probably not going to give them the F-16s with Sweden in Nato or Sweden out of Nato. We have our own interests and at this point giving them the F-16s is not in our interests. Not sure how that changes the situation Sweden has put herself in though. You just better hope that Finland doesn't throw you under the bus and negotiate their veto being lifted on their own. Which they eventually will if Russia shows more aggression. You can harp as much as you want about F-16s and ISIS but it won't change the situation Sweden is now in will it? So again my question is, was it worth it?
1
@magnushem8734 Promises in international relations are often found to be empty one the bullets start flying. A legal obligation to join in generally serves as a much bigger barrier of protection. A lot of nations promised to defend Ukraine, what happened?
1
@magnushem8734 He said that a few days before the war started. That isn't what we'd been telling Ukraine for the past 5 years while arming them to the teeth. We essentially used Ukraine as the sacrificial lamb to feed the Russians. To hurt the Russians yes but was it worth the cost of having Ukraine destroyed? The globalists seem to think so.
1
@magnushem8734 The people of the EU have zero say in these matters. Since the EU has zero ability to protect itself it simply has no choice but to go along with what is handed down from Washington. The fact our electricity bills have skyrocketed (everywhere), food costs double and everyone is suffering should make us pause and think who's interests our leaders are serving, but that is an entirely different conversation all together. I think we should stick to the topic at hand, that being Finland and Sweden being locked out of Nato and why.
1
@magnushem8734 When bullets start flying no one really cares who is and who isn't underdeveloped or a democracy. Nations start making cold hard calculations on how they should react. War can destroy a democracy just as fast as it can destroy an autocracy, their infrastructure will get destroyed the same and their people will suffer the same. So I'm not even sure why you'd even bring that into the conversation. Unless you're some how trying to get the point across that Ukraine because they're XYZ aren't worth protecting but Finland and Sweden are? Are the lives of Fins and Swedes worth more in your opinion than a Ukrainian? Also the fact Sweden and Finland have collaborated with Nato still doesn't change the fact they won't be covered under article 5.
1
@magnushem8734 Again I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're debating.
1
@magnushem8734 So you believe in values like democracy. Yet want to pile on a nation for doing what it's people are pressuring it to do? Also wouldn't you call financing armed groups which are blowing up schools in a country which belongs to a military alliance you want to join erratic? The level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in your arguments are outright terrifying. The only thing you've been saying I can agree with is how we in the USA have a horrible experience with military aid to sketchy groups. That is about the only rational thing you've said in our entire conversation.
1
@magnushem8734 Again you can't send finance groups which are blowing up schools and hospitals without raising eyebrows. The fact these groups constantly change their names doesn't really change the reality of the situation. I'm not saying Sweden should or shouldn't finance these armed groups, that is up to Sweden. What I am saying is you can't finance these groups and then try to join a collective defense organization where a member of that organization (which has a veto) is the one being attacked by said organizations. It's an insane policy.
1
@magnushem8734 You might want to check into that.
1