Turkey has finally agreed to let Sweden join NATO, but why would you want to join a defunct alliance?
After over a year of diplomatic deadlock and many twists and turns Turkey has finally formally agreed to let Sweden join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In related news, the US has also agreed to sell F-16 multi-role fighter jets to Turkey. What better indication of decline for a defensive alliance than the fact that bribery is the only way to get new members into the alliance? I keep coming back to the same point every time NATO is discussed: the Soviet Union is gone and thus the NATO members have no common enemy any more. How can Sweden possibly think that Turkey would come to its aid in the event of a war? And what would the US have to bribe Ankara with? F-22s? F-35s? or nuclear submarines à la AUKUS?
Alliances are always and everywhere temporary marriages of convenience built on the credibility of the parties in the alliance. The deterring effect of an alliance only works if the common enemy genuinely believes that the alliance members would actually help each other, and that they would contribute meaningfully. Turkey has shown time and time again that it does not care whether Sweden is in the alliance or not, and by taking that stance it not only undermines Sweden’s security but the credibility of NATO as an alliance. Sweden should be grateful of the US’ help in the accession process but the whole rigamarole begs the question: if the US cares about Sweden’s security and Turkey does not, why do we need Turkey in the alliance? Would it not be cleaner to have a separate agreement between Sweden and the US?
The short answer is that we do not need Turkey, but that the US wants to maintain the illusion that NATO is a real alliance which works, in spite in the frequent and obvious signs to the contrary. It never makes sense for the alliance members to admit that they would ignore their allies’ pleas for help should a war break out, but it makes perfect sense for Sweden, which is still outside the alliance to question if the alliance is worth joining.
PM Nilsson wrote a leader recently where he quotes a Finnish acquittance of his as saying that Turkey’s doubts about Sweden joining the alliance is a clear sign of strength. Sweden would stir the pot, have its own view on things, and has an air force strong enough and a geography strategic enough to have its voice be heard. While that is a hopeful and flattering read on the situation, I think it is plainly wrong. Ankara does not have concerns about another headstrong country joining the alliance as I think Erdogan is savvy enough to know that the alliance is dead in all but name. He milks the accession process for all he can so because he knows he will not support the alliance members just because they are alliance members. He will call on NATO if Turkey is attacked but would not send troops if Estonia is attacked. Why wouldn’t you use the leverage you have? If I am right that NATO has run its course then there are no drawbacks.
An alliance is only worth something if you know that your allies will have your back. Turkey and Hungary show time and time again that they don’t have Sweden’s back, and I don’t blame them for it. They have no reason to think that France or the UK would back them up in a war either as the pan-European bogeyman the USSR is dead and buried. Similarly NATO is a dead man walking and the Swedish accession process is an embarrassment of riches if you are looking for proof of its rapidly declining power and relevance.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about multipolarity here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover photo by Hasan Hüseyin Yücel from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Comments