Turkish president Erdogan whom British regard as Putin's man and who helped Ukraine didn't paralyze European security, leaving Stockholm vulnerable to Vladimir Putin - Sweden which partnered with Putin for 40 years by refusing to deliberately join NATO and which is infested with nazism, however, was and is

And thats probabaly also(for those who need physical proofs) because Turkey still remembers SREBRENICA for one thing even that situation with Tatars in Crimea is almost indifferent...

A single state which is infested with issues such as is Sweden within organisation itself can pose most serious threat to others within - Sweden NOT Turkey spied for Putin inside of EU for no less than 28 years regardless of what results war in Ukraine will bring about.

And why is United Kingdom known as Great Britain no longer a European Union member state !!????? And finally - are numbers such as 2022 and 2023 different numbers specially when/if month of February is attached to 2022 next to what also is "delivered" !!??????

I know what MASTER RACE DID TO ME PERSONALLY as United States and the so called Slovenia(EU member state which, however, represented Slovenia and Russia against me with help of USA), so I understand Erdogan's concerns. I was in Sweden not only when delivered drugged up for torture, but also in real time...in Sweden and in Norway. My head bled on two occasions in Sweden and I managed to survive by Swedish police trained gang as well as serious accident during which assistance at the local hospital in Karlstad was declined to me at the entrance to one when I appeared with cracked skull. Spent 9 months jobless there visiting all employers from door to door throughout Goteborg and Karlstad where previously also tortured(
sadism went on throughout entire Sweden)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-man-nato-becoming-dangerous-180429688.html

Putin’s man in Nato is becoming dangerous

Mark Almond

Thu, June 15, 2023 at 8:04 PM GMT+2

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

With Nato’s vital summit in Vilnius looming, Turkey’s President Erdoğan is distracting Western attention from the brutal war in Ukraine by manufacturing a crisis over admitting Sweden into the alliance. It’s an issue that has already begun to paralyse European security, leaving Stockholm vulnerable and playing directly into the bloodied hands of Vladimir Putin.

Everyone – including officials in Ankara – can see that Sweden meets the criteria for joining Nato. The problem is that Erdoğan, emboldened by an unprecedented third election victory, is more intent than ever on pursuing policies that challenge not only the West, but the very democratic and human rights principles that the alliance is there to defend. This is a man who prosecutes his rivals and gets them banned from politics. Now, though, he’s taking this brand of authoritarianism to a new level, demanding that Sweden extradite named opponents before it can join.

We can debate the rights and wrongs of Sweden’s asylum policy for Kurds. But can any advocate of the rule of law agree to let a foreign government decide whom it should expel from its territory?

Let’s remember how, after an attempt to assassinate Napoleon III in 1858 by a former refugee in Britain, France demanded other dissidents against his regime be handed over. Uproar followed in Parliament and in the press over letting a foreign dictator decide who could reside in this country, even if he was an ally against Russia in the Crimean War.

Foolishly, some analysts saw Erdoğan’s post-election cabinet as a positive omen because he appointed an orthodox economy minister. The implication was that he might begin to fall in line with the West over issues such as Putin’s war or Syria’s fate.

How wrong they were. Instead, Erdoğan has set his sights on using and abusing Turkey’s strategic location vis-à-vis Russia and Iran to manipulate Europe’s defence, judging that America and the core Nato membership are so anxious to get Sweden accepted into the alliance that they will ultimately swallow his demands, however outrageous or damaging.

For the West, there is no need to make Erdoğan a martyr in the eyes of the Turkish public or, worse still, make them feel their country has been disrespected. But it would be a terrible error to cave in to the Turkish government’s demands by conceding them a treasure trove of sophisticated weapons systems or dissidents. Arguably, the US has already conceded too much, such as with the delivery of upgrades to F-16 fighter jets.

Erdoğan’s justification for undermining Nato is that he’s putting Turkey’s national interest first, and perhaps he genuinely believes this. However, Nato was not founded to serve Turkey alone. If the other allied countries (including Hungary on this issue) think that admitting Sweden is in their own national interest and Turkey remains dead against that, then a clash should be welcomed. And while Nato has no procedure for expelling members, the other 30 states could bypass Turkey on an ad hoc basis.

For instance, even if it is not possible to formally admit Sweden next month, it shouldn’t be beyond the alliance’s strategists and logisticians to set up mechanisms of co-operation with Sweden that grant it most or all of the benefits of membership. After all, for decades, “neutral” Sweden has engaged in de facto co-operation with us.

Putting Ankara on the spot that way would absolutely call Erdoğan’s bluff, and not just on Nato expansion – for the Turkish president is acting against Western interests across the board. He plays a double game with Russia over Ukraine, as well as meddling in Syria and Iraq. These issues are crying out for Washington to decide what its core interests are.

Of course, Turkey’s choice of president is up to its people, but when Erdoğan’s policies undermine the security of the West and promote the interests of Vladimir Putin, we ought to push back strongly and strategically – and stop calling Ankara a vital ally.

Mark Almond is director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford