You're defending the suicidal, and dismissing the indispensable as "impossible". Again: thanks for your insight, mr. Chamberlain. Another cup of concentrated appeasement juice for you, then?
Did Erdogan shoot your dog?
I'm dismissing the fucking unrealistic as impossible, argue otherwise if you want, stupid quips only show that you have no solution to this problem, only pie in the sky.
Look at Russia right now. My view is based on visible evidence. This great Bear cannot even take Kiev. I thought they were set to collapse before this all went down, and I esteemed their military abilities far higher than they turned out to be. Recent events only prove that Russia is doomed.
If disappointingly ineffective military invasions inevitably caused countries to collapse, there would have been far more collapsed countries in the Middle East during the Cold War. If even notoriously unstable Arab dictatorships can survive such humiliating defeats, against tiny Israel nonetheless, chances look good for Russia.
Turkey is sabotaging NATO's interests (specifically of improving common defence against problems deriving from Russia), while also still being in bed with Russia. And you're defending them. In short: you're the one willing to throw away NATO's strategic advantages -- to appease Turkey.
Again, you are spinning facts instead looking coldly at the situation.
Turkey is sabotaging NATO interests in one area, but on the other hand by definition support of Kurdish separatism is also against NATO interests, and Turkey making Sweden joining conditional upon not doing that is supporting NATO interests elsewhere.
The fact is that Russia has supplied Kurd militants with weapons since the Cold War and continues to do so.
Russia has supplied weapons to Iraqi Kurds, the first shipment arrived on March 14, RIA news agency quoted the Russian consulate in Iraq as saying on Wednesday.
www.reuters.com
An incoherent American strategy is allowing Putin’s Russia to drive wedges into American alliances and disrupt what little strategy the U.S. has left in Syria. The latest example: Russia’s clever move to back the Syrian Kurds—key allies in what passes for America’s anti-ISIS strategy—against the...
www.hudson.org
So long story short its a complicated situation, Turkey is not holding NATO interests hostage merely for some stupid fancy of its own, its holding NATO interests hostage over... other NATO interests that are closer to home.
On the other hand, simping for Kurds and their militant organizations is kinda inexcusable from the perspective of NATO interests, as they are more of a frenemy than Turkey itself is.
Russia is not supporting them for the hell of it.
Sweden continuing to do so, even if by less direct means, while being in NATO would be improper, not a strategic advantage.
You can be mad that Turkey is aggressively lobbing for the alliance to take Turkey's security interests in mind, but its not unreasonable for Turkey to demand a military alliance protects its security interests as a member.
Stop trying to turn it around on others. You're the one whose attitudes weaken us.
If you have a way to make the western politicians and public adopt an attitude of "crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women", i'm listening. Otherwise i will dismiss you as a pie in the sky enjoyer.
"You need to uderstand others just don't share your belief that Hitler is dangerous, nor that we can easily defeat him. We'd need to see proof of the ability to do this before we try doing it!"
Dangerous to who? If he decides to direct his empire building efforts towards Syria or Iran, even better, he does America's dirty work for it. Being in NATO, that's another reason for him not to direct his aggression northwest.