In the coming months, the Turkish president will have a tough talk about NATO. It is worth remembering that at least some of the statements are related to a tight election campaign, writes foreign journalist Tom Kankkonen.
Tom KankkonenForeign reporter
30.1. 12:20•Updated 30.1. 12:36 p.m
Finland and Sweden have got a new topic of discussion, the president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from the latest NATO statement. Now he hints that Turkey could ratify Finland’s NATO membership, but leave Sweden on the sidelines.
The Turkish president replied to questions from young people in a recorded TV broadcast that was broadcast on Sunday evening. President Erdoğan stated that Turkey might send a different message to Finland and that it would shock Sweden. However, he added that Finland should not repeat the mistakes made by Sweden, if it wants to join NATO.
The president’s speeches did not include any promise of ratification. Although it is reasonable to assume that Erdoğan answered carefully prepared questions, it was also a free-form speech.
The theme is not new either. Erdoğan already stated at the European meeting held in Prague in October that there is a clear difference between Finland and Sweden and that Turkey is ready to act on Finland’s ratification if necessary.
Erdoğan had briefly discussed the Prime Minister in Prague Sanna Marini (sd.) with. The Turkish president stated that terrorism is not rampant in Finland like in Sweden.
Finland has also received gentle treatment in the media controlled by the Turkish government compared to the slurs directed at Sweden.
They are strict in Turkey parliamentary and presidential elections, most likely in May. In other words, in the coming months, the president can also be expected to make strong nationalistic and even threatening speeches about NATO expansion, Greece and other topics.
It’s definitely worth keeping in touch with Turkey, but maybe there’s no need to react to every noise by setting off the alarm sirens.
Alternatively, perhaps the school of Kremlinologists should be revived, which closely followed Soviet-era speeches and comments. Based on them, an attempt was made to predict the direction of the superpower.
Now the new school could analyze the statements of the outspoken Erdoğan and look for signs of movements, dips and significant differences in emphasis.
Instead of Kremlinologists, we should talk about, for example, ankaralogists or erdologists.
What thoughts did the story evoke? You can discuss the topic on 31.1. until 11 p.m.