Finnish President Sauli Niinistö indicated that Ankara’s stance against Finland and Sweden joining NATO creates a shared challenge for Helsinki and Stockholm. Speaking before parliament, the Finnish leader emphasized his confidence that the disagreements with Turkey will be resolved through constructive talks and noted that the two northern nations are taking historic steps together. He asserted that Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership would bolster security and contribute to a stable, responsible, and resilient Scandinavian region.
The move to join NATO came amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, with Moscow warning of consequences should the alliance expand its military footprint. Swedish authorities have signaled readiness to complete outstanding discussions in Helsinki in the near term, aligning with Finland’s objective of a united approach within the alliance.
Within NATO, the goals of Sweden and Finland enjoy broad backing from key members, including the United States and the United Kingdom, which have offered assurances during a transition period that could last about a year. Turkey opposed the membership of Sweden and Finland, though it was formally just one member among many within the alliance.
Ankara’s position centers on safeguarding national interests and resisting what it calls a shift toward a terrorist enclave within the alliance. Turkey objects to the extradition of individuals it labels terrorists, including PKK affiliates and supporters of the FETO network tied to Fethullah Gülen, who faced Turkish accusations after the 2016 coup attempt.
Why is Turkey resisting Sweden and Finland’s NATO entry?
According to the Financial Times, many allegations about Turkey hosting terrorists revolve around Sweden, which allegedly provided shelter to individuals connected to a Turkish power shift in 2016 and received Kurdish figures who have held seats in its parliament. Additionally, sanctions on Turkey over defense-related sales linked to its offensive operations against Syrian Kurds have fed the broader debate about Turkey’s stance on Kurdish groups in the region, including the YPG and PKK in Syria.
Yet, Al Jazeera notes that Turkish officials have emphasized the Kurdish issue partly to mobilize nationalist voters at home. Some observers suggest Turkey’s broader aim is to secure Western economic support and an international role, potentially leveraging access to F-16 fighter jets as part of any rapprochement. Experts differ on Ankara’s precise goals, with some emphasizing a desire to display greater autonomy within NATO and pursue a more independent foreign policy.
Viktor Nadein-Raevsky, a senior researcher at IMEMO RAS, argues that multiple objectives shape Ankara’s approach. He notes that Kurdish concerns clearly influence Turkey’s demands, while other considerations—such as pressing for F-16 capabilities and shaping Turkey’s external posture—also play a role. He highlights the Turkish interest in actions against PKK and YPG, and in addressing the Gülen network’s footprint through education and other institutions abroad.
Additionally, Kirill Semyonov of the Russian Council on International Relations (RIAC) partially agrees, pointing out that Ankara’s current priority appears to be resolving Kurdish issues before yielding on other fronts. He cautions that the United States’ willingness to grant concessions, including F-16 jets, remains uncertain and may affect negotiations. He notes that Turkey’s firm stance could complicate the path to NATO membership for Sweden and Finland, but leaving room for compromise could help prevent a complete blockage.
Is Ankara prepared to block Stockholm and Helsinki from joining NATO? Officially, Turkey could veto the two nations, as NATO decisions require consensus. The admission process unfolds in seven stages, including ratification of the membership protocol across all member states, and can take roughly a year. The extent of Turkey’s willingness to exercise its veto remains unclear.
Analysts from CNN and other outlets consider the possibility that formal obstacles from Turkey might eventually trigger broader discussions about its role within the alliance, though many in Washington and among NATO partners have not endorsed such outcomes. RIAC’s Kirill Semyonov suggests that Ankara’s demands are not yet fixed, leaving room for concessions from both sides. He opines that Finland and Sweden could offer steps such as limiting support to PKK-linked activities or closing certain financial channels tied to the Kurdish movement as part of a compromise.
Meanwhile, IMEMO RAS’s Nadein-Raevsky believes the scenario where Turkey alone blocks NATO entry is unlikely to hold. He notes that the United States is likely to work toward a resolution that preserves Sweden and Finland’s accession while addressing Turkish concerns, though other nations like Croatia have also voiced objections. He emphasizes that strong U.S. involvement could shape the final outcome and help navigate possible roadblocks.
In summary, while Ankara retains leverage over the pace and process of Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership, experts agree that a constructive path remains possible. Negotiations may yield concessions on security guarantees, counter-terrorism cooperation, and Ankara’s broader strategic objectives, enabling a path forward that accommodates Turkish interests without derailing the alliance.