US and European acquiescence in Turkey's long-standing refusal to honour Kurdish ethnic, cultural, and political rights has come home to roost with Turkish opposition to Finnish and Swedish NATO membership.

The opposition has sparked debates about Turkey's controversial place in the North Atlantic defense alliance.

Turkey’s detractors point to its problematic military intervention in Syria, relations with Russia, refusal to sanction Moscow, and alleged fuelling of tension in the eastern Mediterranean, calling the country’s NATO membership into question.

Its defenders note that Turkey, NATO’s second-largest standing military, is key to maintaining the alliance’s southern flank. Also, Turkey’s geography, population size, economy, military power, and cultural links to a Turkic world make it a critical link between Europe and Asia. In addition, Turkish drones have been vital in Ukraine's war with Russia, while Turkey has been a mediator in the conflict, albeit with limited success.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-foreign-minister-visits-turkey-to-discuss-ukraine-grain-exports-486080">Russian foreign minister visits Turkey to discuss Ukraine grain exports</a>

Kurdish rights hardly figure in the debates, and if they do, only as a prop for taking Turkey to task for its slide into authoritarianism.

An ethnic group spread across southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, northern Syria, and western Iran, Kurds are seen at best as assets in the fight against the Islamic State and at worst a threat to Turkish security and territorial integrity. Turkey's estimated 16 million Kurds account for up to 20 per cent of the country's population.

Turkey, or Turkiye as it wants to be known going forward, has used the security argument to make its agreement to Swedish and Finnish NATO membership dependent on the two Nordic countries effectively accepting its definition of terrorism as including any national expression of Kurdish identity.

Turkey has demanded that Sweden and Finland extradite 33 people, some of whom are Swedish or Finnish nationals, because of their alleged support for the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) or exiled preacher Fethullah Gulen, whom President Recep Tayyip Erdogan holds responsible for a failed military coup in 2016.

Turkey accuses the two Nordic countries of allowing the PKK to organize on their territory. Alongside the United States and the European Union, Turkey has designated the PKK as a terrorist organisation. The PKK has waged a decades-long insurgency against Turkey in which tens of thousands have been killed.

Turkey also wants Sweden and Finland to support its military operation against the People's Protection Units (YPG), a US-backed Syrian Kurdish group that played a crucial role in defeating the Islamic State. Turkey asserts that the YPG is an extension of the PKK.

Mr. Erdogan recently announced that Turkey would launch a new military operation to extend the Turkish armed forces' areas of control in Syria to a 30-kilometer swath of land along the two countries shared border. The offensive would target the YPG in the towns of Tel Rifaat and Manbij and possibly Kobani, Ain Issa, and Tell Tamer.

Watch | Ankara renews military offensive threats; Russia warns Turkiye against Syrian offensive

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ankara-renews-military-offensive-threats-russia-warns-turkiye-against-syrian-offensive-485094/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Past US and European failure to stand up for Kurdish rights, as part of Turkey's need to meet the criteria for NATO membership that include "fair treatment of minority populations," has complicated the fight against the Islamic State, stymied Kurdish aspirations beyond Turkey's borders and enabled repression of Kurdish rights in Turkey.

More immediately, the failure to hold Turkey accountable for its repression of Kurdish ethnic and political rights within the framework of the Turkish state has enabled Ankara to establish Turkish policies as a condition for NATO membership even if they violate NATO membership criteria.

Those policies include defining the peaceful expression of Kurdish identity as terrorism and the rolling back of Kurdish language and cultural rights since the collapse in 2015 of peace talks with the PKK. Turkey lifted the ban on Kurdish languages and the word Kurd in 1991. Until then, Kurds were referred to as ‘mountain Turks.’

The governor of the southeastern Turkish province of Diyarbakir, widely seen as a hub of Kurdish cultural and political activity, forced this writer under treat of death to leave the region for using the word Kurd rather than mountain Turk in interviews in the 1980s.

Kurdish language programs in universities have dwindled in recent years amid administrative hurdles, while Kurdish parents complain of pressure not to enroll their children in elective Kurdish courses.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-walks-out-of-security-council-meeting-after-eu-blames-kremlin-for-looming-food-crisis-485958">Russia walks out of Security Council meeting after EU blames Kremlin for looming food crisis</a>

Most Kurdish-language services and activities created by local administrations were terminated by government-appointed trustees who replaced dozens of Kurdish mayors ousted by Ankara for alleged links to the PKK. Many of the ousted mayors and other leading Kurdish politicians remain behind bars.

The failure to take Turkey to task early on takes on added significance at a time when NATO casts the war in Ukraine as a battle of values and of democracy versus autocracy that will shape the contours of a 21st-century world order.

For his part, US President Joe Biden has sought to regain the moral high ground in the wake of the Trump presidency that broke with American liberalism by declaring “America is back” in the struggle for democratic and human rights.

Mr. Biden and Europe’s problem is that their credibility rides on cleaning up at home and ensuring that they are seen as sincere rather than hypocritical.

That’s a tall order amid assertions of structural racism on both sides of the Atlantic; controversy over gun ownership in the United States; preferential arrangements for Ukrainian refugees as opposed to non-Europeans and non-whites fleeing war, persecution, and destruction; and foreign policies that treat violations of human and political rights differently depending on who commits them.

The obvious place to start is at home. Kurds could be another starting point, with Finnish and Swedish NATO membership on the front burner. Meeting Turkish demands regarding perpetrators of political violence is one thing; acquiescing in the criminalization of legitimate Kurdish political and cultural expression is another.

That may be a tough bargain to drive home in Ankara. However, it would offer a compromise formula that could serve everyone’s interest and help Turkey solve a problem that promises to be one of the Middle East’s multiple exploding powder kegs.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

US and European acquiescence in Turkey's long-standing refusal to honour Kurdish ethnic, cultural, and political rights has come home to roost with Turkish opposition to Finnish and Swedish NATO membership.

US and European acquiescence in Turkey's long-standing refusal to honour Kurdish ethnic, cultural, and political rights has come home to roost with Turkish opposition to Finnish and Swedish NATO membership. The opposition has sparked debates about Turkey's controversial place in the North Atlantic defense alliance. Turkey’s detractors point to its problematic military intervention in Syria, relations with Russia, refusal to sanction Moscow, and alleged fuelling of tension in the eastern Mediterranean, calling the country’s NATO membership into question. Its defenders note that Turkey, NATO’s second-largest standing military, is key to maintaining the alliance’s southern flank. Also, Turkey’s geography, population size, economy, military power, and cultural links to a Turkic world make it a critical link between Europe and Asia. In addition, Turkish drones have been vital in Ukraine's war with Russia, while Turkey has been a mediator in the conflict, albeit with limited success. Also Read | Russian foreign minister visits Turkey to discuss Ukraine grain exports Kurdish rights hardly figure in the debates, and if they do, only as a prop for taking Turkey to task for its slide into authoritarianism. An ethnic group spread across southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, northern Syria, and western Iran, Kurds are seen at best as assets in the fight against the Islamic State and at worst a threat to Turkish security and territorial integrity. Turkey's estimated 16 million Kurds account for up to 20 per cent of the country's population. Turkey, or Turkiye as it wants to be known going forward, has used the security argument to make its agreement to Swedish and Finnish NATO membership dependent on the two Nordic countries effectively accepting its definition of terrorism as including any national expression of Kurdish identity. Turkey has demanded that Sweden and Finland extradite 33 people, some of whom are Swedish or Finnish nationals, because of their alleged support for the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) or exiled preacher Fethullah Gulen, whom President Recep Tayyip Erdogan holds responsible for a failed military coup in 2016. Turkey accuses the two Nordic countries of allowing the PKK to organize on their territory. Alongside the United States and the European Union, Turkey has designated the PKK as a terrorist organisation. The PKK has waged a decades-long insurgency against Turkey in which tens of thousands have been killed. Turkey also wants Sweden and Finland to support its military operation against the People's Protection Units (YPG), a US-backed Syrian Kurdish group that played a crucial role in defeating the Islamic State. Turkey asserts that the YPG is an extension of the PKK. Mr. Erdogan recently announced that Turkey would launch a new military operation to extend the Turkish armed forces' areas of control in Syria to a 30-kilometer swath of land along the two countries shared border. The offensive would target the YPG in the towns of Tel Rifaat and Manbij and possibly Kobani, Ain Issa, and Tell Tamer. Watch | Ankara renews military offensive threats; Russia warns Turkiye against Syrian offensive × Past US and European failure to stand up for Kurdish rights, as part of Turkey's need to meet the criteria for NATO membership that include "fair treatment of minority populations," has complicated the fight against the Islamic State, stymied Kurdish aspirations beyond Turkey's borders and enabled repression of Kurdish rights in Turkey. More immediately, the failure to hold Turkey accountable for its repression of Kurdish ethnic and political rights within the framework of the Turkish state has enabled Ankara to establish Turkish policies as a condition for NATO membership even if they violate NATO membership criteria. Those policies include defining the peaceful expression of Kurdish identity as terrorism and the rolling back of Kurdish language and cultural rights since the collapse in 2015 of peace talks with the PKK. Turkey lifted the ban on Kurdish languages and the word Kurd in 1991. Until then, Kurds were referred to as ‘mountain Turks.’ The governor of the southeastern Turkish province of Diyarbakir, widely seen as a hub of Kurdish cultural and political activity, forced this writer under treat of death to leave the region for using the word Kurd rather than mountain Turk in interviews in the 1980s. Kurdish language programs in universities have dwindled in recent years amid administrative hurdles, while Kurdish parents complain of pressure not to enroll their children in elective Kurdish courses. Also Read | Russia walks out of Security Council meeting after EU blames Kremlin for looming food crisis Most Kurdish-language services and activities created by local administrations were terminated by government-appointed trustees who replaced dozens of Kurdish mayors ousted by Ankara for alleged links to the PKK. Many of the ousted mayors and other leading Kurdish politicians remain behind bars. The failure to take Turkey to task early on takes on added significance at a time when NATO casts the war in Ukraine as a battle of values and of democracy versus autocracy that will shape the contours of a 21st-century world order. For his part, US President Joe Biden has sought to regain the moral high ground in the wake of the Trump presidency that broke with American liberalism by declaring “America is back” in the struggle for democratic and human rights. Mr. Biden and Europe’s problem is that their credibility rides on cleaning up at home and ensuring that they are seen as sincere rather than hypocritical. That’s a tall order amid assertions of structural racism on both sides of the Atlantic; controversy over gun ownership in the United States; preferential arrangements for Ukrainian refugees as opposed to non-Europeans and non-whites fleeing war, persecution, and destruction; and foreign policies that treat violations of human and political rights differently depending on who commits them. The obvious place to start is at home. Kurds could be another starting point, with Finnish and Swedish NATO membership on the front burner. Meeting Turkish demands regarding perpetrators of political violence is one thing; acquiescing in the criminalization of legitimate Kurdish political and cultural expression is another. That may be a tough bargain to drive home in Ankara. However, it would offer a compromise formula that could serve everyone’s interest and help Turkey solve a problem that promises to be one of the Middle East’s multiple exploding powder kegs. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Double standards haunt US and Europe in NATO dispute with Turkey

Sweden's government said Tuesday it had clinched a last-minute deal to ensure its justice minister would survive a no-confidence vote in parliament, averting a political crisis.

The deal stems from winning the support of an independent lawmaker who is determined that Stockholm does not cave into Turkish conditions for supporting Sweden's bid to join NATO.

The potential crisis comes just three months ahead of general elections and less than a year after the Social Democratic government was toppled and then returned to power within weeks.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/talks-will-clarify-misunderstandings-sweden-and-finland-attempt-to-overcome-turkeys-objection-482364">'Talks will clarify misunderstandings,' Sweden and Finland attempt to overcome Turkey's objection</a>

The no-confidence vote, which is scheduled to be held in parliament at 12:00 pm (1000 GMT), was launched by the far-right Sweden Democrats who accuse Justice Minister Morgan Johansson of failing to stem rising gang violence.

Sweden has struggled to reduce the shootings and bombings that have plagued the country in recent years, usually due to gangland rivalries or organised criminals battling over the drug market.

"We have reached a point where the single most important crime policy measure is to give Morgan Johansson an early retirement," Sweden Democrat MP Henrik Vinge told parliament last week.

The conservative Moderate Party along with the Liberal Party and the Christian Democrats had announced that they would support the motion.

Those four parties control 174 seats in parliament but they needed one more vote for the motion to pass.

If parliament were to vote against Johansson, he would have lost his job.

Andersson made it clear last week that she would resign if a no-confidence vote passed against Johansson, saying all government decisions are made collectively.

Assurances on Turkey

With one vote missing, the situation hinged on parliamentarian Amineh Kakabaveh, a former Left Party member sitting in parliament as an independent since 2019.

Kakabaveh, who is of Iranian-Kurdish origin, has become a focal point in Swedish politics over Turkey's opposition to Stockholm's bid to join NATO.

Ankara accuses Stockholm of providing a haven for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as a "terrorist" group by Turkey and its Western allies, and has demanded the extradition of people it considers extremists and the lifting of a weapons embargo.&nbsp;

Kakabaveh, who has no direct political link to the PKK, had sought assurances that the ruling Social Democrats would not cave into Turkish demands, saying otherwise she would vote against Johansson.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/what-is-behind-turkeys-syria-incursion-threats-485142">What is behind Turkey’s Syria incursion threats?</a>

Early Tuesday, Kakabaveh told Swedish media she had received the assurances she wanted.

Last November, she and the government reached an agreement in which she would provide the casting vote to bring the cabinet into power in exchange for deeper cooperation with the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the political arm of the main Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG.

Turkey also deems the YPG militia as "terrorists".

The Social Democratic government confirmed Tuesday the deal was still in force, implying it was prepared to stand up to Erdogan's demands.

"I'm satisfied," Kakabaveh said.

Analysts had pointed out that even if Andersson did resign, she would likely have remained prime minister of an interim government with general elections scheduled in September.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Sweden's government said Tuesday it had clinched a last-minute deal to ensure its justice minister would survive a no-confidence vote in parliament, averting a political crisis.

Sweden's government said Tuesday it had clinched a last-minute deal to ensure its justice minister would survive a no-confidence vote in parliament, averting a political crisis. The deal stems from winning the support of an independent lawmaker who is determined that Stockholm does not cave into Turkish conditions for supporting Sweden's bid to join NATO. The potential crisis comes just three months ahead of general elections and less than a year after the Social Democratic government was toppled and then returned to power within weeks. Also read | 'Talks will clarify misunderstandings,' Sweden and Finland attempt to overcome Turkey's objection The no-confidence vote, which is scheduled to be held in parliament at 12:00 pm (1000 GMT), was launched by the far-right Sweden Democrats who accuse Justice Minister Morgan Johansson of failing to stem rising gang violence. Sweden has struggled to reduce the shootings and bombings that have plagued the country in recent years, usually due to gangland rivalries or organised criminals battling over the drug market. "We have reached a point where the single most important crime policy measure is to give Morgan Johansson an early retirement," Sweden Democrat MP Henrik Vinge told parliament last week. The conservative Moderate Party along with the Liberal Party and the Christian Democrats had announced that they would support the motion. Those four parties control 174 seats in parliament but they needed one more vote for the motion to pass. If parliament were to vote against Johansson, he would have lost his job. Andersson made it clear last week that she would resign if a no-confidence vote passed against Johansson, saying all government decisions are made collectively. Assurances on Turkey With one vote missing, the situation hinged on parliamentarian Amineh Kakabaveh, a former Left Party member sitting in parliament as an independent since 2019. Kakabaveh, who is of Iranian-Kurdish origin, has become a focal point in Swedish politics over Turkey's opposition to Stockholm's bid to join NATO. Ankara accuses Stockholm of providing a haven for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as a "terrorist" group by Turkey and its Western allies, and has demanded the extradition of people it considers extremists and the lifting of a weapons embargo. Kakabaveh, who has no direct political link to the PKK, had sought assurances that the ruling Social Democrats would not cave into Turkish demands, saying otherwise she would vote against Johansson. Also read | What is behind Turkey’s Syria incursion threats? Early Tuesday, Kakabaveh told Swedish media she had received the assurances she wanted. Last November, she and the government reached an agreement in which she would provide the casting vote to bring the cabinet into power in exchange for deeper cooperation with the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the political arm of the main Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG. Turkey also deems the YPG militia as "terrorists". The Social Democratic government confirmed Tuesday the deal was still in force, implying it was prepared to stand up to Erdogan's demands. "I'm satisfied," Kakabaveh said. Analysts had pointed out that even if Andersson did resign, she would likely have remained prime minister of an interim government with general elections scheduled in September. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Swedish government averts political crisis with last-minute deal

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland has applied for NATO membership. Around 300 Finnish women have signed up for military training.

As Finland applies for NATO membership, Finnish women sign up for military training

Sri Lanka is battling its worst economic crisis in decades. The new PM and his administration is working towards pulling it back from Bankruptcy.

Pulling Sri Lanka back from Bankruptcy: Sri Lanka needs $6 billion to keep afloat

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is planning to attend a summit of leaders from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), news agency Reuters reported citing sources familiar with the matter said.&nbsp;

The summit is scheduled for late June in Spain and if he attends, it will make him the first Japanese leader to take part in a NATO summit, a gathering of the Western alliance.&nbsp;

Kishida's attendance at the June 29 to 30 event in Madrid is dependent on the domestic political situation leading up to a House of Councillors election likely to be held July 10, the sources said.&nbsp;

A report by Kyodo News mentioned citing sources that the scenario of Kishida's attendance at the event in Madrid is dependent on the House of Councillors election, which is likely to happen on July 10. The NATO summit will be held from June 29 to 30.&nbsp;

Kishida's decision regarding the summit will be finalised after the country's domestic political situation is sorted. However, the Japan-based news agency reported that a government spokesman said officials would be unable to comment on the matter.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, NATO has invited Japan to the summit, along with Australia, New Zealand and South Korea as its partners in the Asia-Pacific region.&nbsp;

The sources, who asked not to be named, told Reuters that Kishida plans to arrive in Madrid after attending a meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized nations in Germany.&nbsp;

Amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Kishida's presence at the summit would be&nbsp;treated as a strong message of international solidarity during the crisis, Kyodo's sources noted.&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is planning to attend a summit of leaders from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), news agency Reuters reported citing sources familiar with the matter said.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is planning to attend a summit of leaders from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), news agency Reuters reported citing sources familiar with the matter said. The summit is scheduled for late June in Spain and if he attends, it will make him the first Japanese leader to take part in a NATO summit, a gathering of the Western alliance. Kishida's attendance at the June 29 to 30 event in Madrid is dependent on the domestic political situation leading up to a House of Councillors election likely to be held July 10, the sources said. A report by Kyodo News mentioned citing sources that the scenario of Kishida's attendance at the event in Madrid is dependent on the House of Councillors election, which is likely to happen on July 10. The NATO summit will be held from June 29 to 30. Kishida's decision regarding the summit will be finalised after the country's domestic political situation is sorted. However, the Japan-based news agency reported that a government spokesman said officials would be unable to comment on the matter. Meanwhile, NATO has invited Japan to the summit, along with Australia, New Zealand and South Korea as its partners in the Asia-Pacific region. The sources, who asked not to be named, told Reuters that Kishida plans to arrive in Madrid after attending a meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized nations in Germany. Amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Kishida's presence at the summit would be treated as a strong message of international solidarity during the crisis, Kyodo's sources noted. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida considers joining NATO summit in Spain: Report

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO nations are holding exercise in Baltic sea. The move is expected to anger Russia.

NATO holds exercise in the Baltic sea: Move expected to anger Russia

What is behind Turkey’s Syria incursion threats?

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning a military incursion into Syria to drive back Kurdish fighters. Both Russia and the US have warned Erdogan against destabilising Syria. Will Turkey's military plans drag NATO and Russia into a new conflict? Palki Sharma Upadhyay tells you.

Gravitas: Is Turkey planning to invade Syria?

In April, as the world was occupied with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a NATO member launched an attack on two of its neighboring territories. In a bombing campaign, Turkey targeted the camps of Kurdish militants in Iraq and Syria, inflicting damage on shelters, ammunition depots and bases.

The irony went largely unnoticed. That’s hardly a surprise: For a long time, the Western world has turned a blind eye to Turkey’s heavy-handed treatment of the Kurds. Across decades, the Turkish state has persecuted the Kurdish minority — about 18 percent of the population — with devastating zeal. Thousands have perished and around a million have been displaced in a campaign of severe internal repression. But Western nations, except for a brief spell when Kurdish resistance was holding back an ascendant Islamic State, have rarely seemed to care.

Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds is now center stage — but not because allies have woken up to the injustice of Kurds’ systematic oppression. Instead, it’s because Turkey is effectively threatening to block the admittance of Finland and Sweden to NATO unless they agree to crack down on Kurdish militants. For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeing an opportunity to further cement his nationalist agenda, it’s a bold gambit. The tepid response from NATO allies so far suggests he might be successful.

However the situation shakes out, it’s deeply revealing. For Turkey, it underlines once again the vigor with which Mr. Erdogan is keen to stamp out the Kurds while asserting the country as a regional power. For the alliance itself, the impasse brings to light facts currently obscured by its makeover as a purely defensive organization. NATO, which has long acquiesced in the persecution of the Kurds, is far from a force for peace. And Turkey, a member since 1952, proves it.

Turkey’s conflict with the Kurds goes back at least to the late 19th century, when Ottoman centralization led to tribal uprisings. The initial two decades of the Turkish Republic, founded in 1923, involved the denial of Kurdish identity, autonomy and language, all of which were mainstays of the Ottoman Empire. Rebellions ensued but were forcibly put down. After remaining largely dormant in the 1940s and 1950s, Kurdish militancy then experienced a revival, under revolutionary banners. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., emerged in this atmosphere.

The organization is designated a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and the European Union — and its methods are indeed violent. Across four decades of conflict, the P.K.K. has contributed to the bloodshed and is responsible for the deaths of civilians as well as security officials. Yet Turkey’s militaristic approach to the Kurdish issue has left little room for other, more conciliatory Kurdish organizations.

The country experienced a spring of Kurdish activism in the late 1960s and 1970s, when many left-wing Turkish movements and organizations also expressed solidarity with the Kurds. But a coup d’état in 1980 heavily crushed these forces, with the exception of the P.K.K., most of whose camps were already outside Turkey. In the years after the coup, the heavy torture suffered by Kurdish activists of various organizations swelled the ranks of the P.K.K. More embittered against the Turkish state than ever, many activists saw no other effective home for their struggle.

Things today aren’t much better: Peaceful forms of Kurdish activism — such as those organized by the legal Peoples’ Democratic Party, or H.D.P. — are under constant attack, accused of affiliation with the P.K.K. The government also claims that the P.K.K. is in cahoots with the Gulen movement, a former ally of the ruling party the government accuses of orchestrating a failed coup attempt in 2016. It is members of these two groups who Mr. Erdogan is demanding Sweden and Finland give up.

Where was NATO in all of this? The 1980 military intervention, at least passively endorsed by the alliance, was led by Kenan Evren, a commander in NATO’s counter-guerilla forces. Western countries kept on providing ample support for campaigns against the Kurds in the following years, even during the exceptionally violent clashes of 1993-95. As hostilities resumed in the 2010s, the West largely neglected internal waves of repression and Turkey’s recurrent incursions into Syria and Iraq, where Kurds have long sought refuge.

If such enabling silence is so persistent, why did Mr. Erdogan choose this particular time to ramp up military adventures? The answer is simple: Elections are around the corner, and the government, overseeing the country’s worst economic crisis in two decades, is counting on jingoism as a remedy for national ills. The ruling party has accordingly ratcheted up its moves against the Kurds, with imprisonment of politicians and journalists, military campaigns abroad and bans on concerts and plays at home.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has apparently further emboldened Mr. Erdogan. It has allowed Turkey to pose as a friend to the West, earning praise for its early blockade of the Black Sea while continuing to pursue its repressive agenda. What’s more, by pushing Sweden and Finland — perceived to be longtime harborers of Kurdish militants — toward NATO, the war has handed Turkey a golden opportunity.

If the United States were to pressure the two countries to accept Turkey’s demands, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken has suggested might happen, it would be more than a policing victory. It would be a rare symbolic triumph. Bombings and cultural bans would be nothing compared with an international admission, sealed by the world’s most powerful country, that Kurdish rights can be waved aside.

It’s tempting to see Turkey as an exceptionally bellicose state. Labeled the “sick man of Europe” in the final days of the Ottoman Empire, the country now appears to be the continent’s belligerent man. But it’s wrong to look at the country in isolation. Mr. Erdogan’s aggression is not his alone. It is enabled, encouraged and buttressed by Western countries, as well as Russia.

In Turkey, this is a provocative claim: The authorities want their citizens, and the world, to believe that “foreigners” and “outside powers” have always supported Kurdish separatism. This quite popular but highly twisted perception of reality says nothing about the weapons, logistical support and consent other countries have abundantly provided in the killing of Kurds.

The United States supplied weapons to Syrian Kurds during their fight against the Islamic State, it’s true. But that’s dwarfed by the sophistication and amount of military equipment that Turkey, home to NATO’s second-largest military, secures thanks to being part of the Western alliance.

The truth is that Turkey’s aggression has gone hand in hand with NATO acceptance, even complicity. It’s no use Western countries lecturing Turkey, or Turkey complaining of Western hypocrisy: They are in it together. Whatever happens with the alliance’s expansion — whether the Kurds are sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical expediency or not — this should be a moment of clarity. In a world of war, no country has a monopoly on violence.

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In April, as the world was occupied with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a NATO member launched an attack on two of its neighboring territories. In a bombing campaign, Turkey targeted the camps of Kurdish militants in Iraq and Syria, inflicting damage on shelters, ammunition depots and bases.

In April, as the world was occupied with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a NATO member launched an attack on two of its neighboring territories. In a bombing campaign, Turkey targeted the camps of Kurdish militants in Iraq and Syria, inflicting damage on shelters, ammunition depots and bases. The irony went largely unnoticed. That’s hardly a surprise: For a long time, the Western world has turned a blind eye to Turkey’s heavy-handed treatment of the Kurds. Across decades, the Turkish state has persecuted the Kurdish minority — about 18 percent of the population — with devastating zeal. Thousands have perished and around a million have been displaced in a campaign of severe internal repression. But Western nations, except for a brief spell when Kurdish resistance was holding back an ascendant Islamic State, have rarely seemed to care. Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds is now center stage — but not because allies have woken up to the injustice of Kurds’ systematic oppression. Instead, it’s because Turkey is effectively threatening to block the admittance of Finland and Sweden to NATO unless they agree to crack down on Kurdish militants. For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeing an opportunity to further cement his nationalist agenda, it’s a bold gambit. The tepid response from NATO allies so far suggests he might be successful. However the situation shakes out, it’s deeply revealing. For Turkey, it underlines once again the vigor with which Mr. Erdogan is keen to stamp out the Kurds while asserting the country as a regional power. For the alliance itself, the impasse brings to light facts currently obscured by its makeover as a purely defensive organization. NATO, which has long acquiesced in the persecution of the Kurds, is far from a force for peace. And Turkey, a member since 1952, proves it. Turkey’s conflict with the Kurds goes back at least to the late 19th century, when Ottoman centralization led to tribal uprisings. The initial two decades of the Turkish Republic, founded in 1923, involved the denial of Kurdish identity, autonomy and language, all of which were mainstays of the Ottoman Empire. Rebellions ensued but were forcibly put down. After remaining largely dormant in the 1940s and 1950s, Kurdish militancy then experienced a revival, under revolutionary banners. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., emerged in this atmosphere. The organization is designated a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and the European Union — and its methods are indeed violent. Across four decades of conflict, the P.K.K. has contributed to the bloodshed and is responsible for the deaths of civilians as well as security officials. Yet Turkey’s militaristic approach to the Kurdish issue has left little room for other, more conciliatory Kurdish organizations. The country experienced a spring of Kurdish activism in the late 1960s and 1970s, when many left-wing Turkish movements and organizations also expressed solidarity with the Kurds. But a coup d’état in 1980 heavily crushed these forces, with the exception of the P.K.K., most of whose camps were already outside Turkey. In the years after the coup, the heavy torture suffered by Kurdish activists of various organizations swelled the ranks of the P.K.K. More embittered against the Turkish state than ever, many activists saw no other effective home for their struggle. Things today aren’t much better: Peaceful forms of Kurdish activism — such as those organized by the legal Peoples’ Democratic Party, or H.D.P. — are under constant attack, accused of affiliation with the P.K.K. The government also claims that the P.K.K. is in cahoots with the Gulen movement, a former ally of the ruling party the government accuses of orchestrating a failed coup attempt in 2016. It is members of these two groups who Mr. Erdogan is demanding Sweden and Finland give up. Where was NATO in all of this? The 1980 military intervention, at least passively endorsed by the alliance, was led by Kenan Evren, a commander in NATO’s counter-guerilla forces. Western countries kept on providing ample support for campaigns against the Kurds in the following years, even during the exceptionally violent clashes of 1993-95. As hostilities resumed in the 2010s, the West largely neglected internal waves of repression and Turkey’s recurrent incursions into Syria and Iraq, where Kurds have long sought refuge. If such enabling silence is so persistent, why did Mr. Erdogan choose this particular time to ramp up military adventures? The answer is simple: Elections are around the corner, and the government, overseeing the country’s worst economic crisis in two decades, is counting on jingoism as a remedy for national ills. The ruling party has accordingly ratcheted up its moves against the Kurds, with imprisonment of politicians and journalists, military campaigns abroad and bans on concerts and plays at home. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has apparently further emboldened Mr. Erdogan. It has allowed Turkey to pose as a friend to the West, earning praise for its early blockade of the Black Sea while continuing to pursue its repressive agenda. What’s more, by pushing Sweden and Finland — perceived to be longtime harborers of Kurdish militants — toward NATO, the war has handed Turkey a golden opportunity. If the United States were to pressure the two countries to accept Turkey’s demands, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken has suggested might happen, it would be more than a policing victory. It would be a rare symbolic triumph. Bombings and cultural bans would be nothing compared with an international admission, sealed by the world’s most powerful country, that Kurdish rights can be waved aside. It’s tempting to see Turkey as an exceptionally bellicose state. Labeled the “sick man of Europe” in the final days of the Ottoman Empire, the country now appears to be the continent’s belligerent man. But it’s wrong to look at the country in isolation. Mr. Erdogan’s aggression is not his alone. It is enabled, encouraged and buttressed by Western countries, as well as Russia. In Turkey, this is a provocative claim: The authorities want their citizens, and the world, to believe that “foreigners” and “outside powers” have always supported Kurdish separatism. This quite popular but highly twisted perception of reality says nothing about the weapons, logistical support and consent other countries have abundantly provided in the killing of Kurds. The United States supplied weapons to Syrian Kurds during their fight against the Islamic State, it’s true. But that’s dwarfed by the sophistication and amount of military equipment that Turkey, home to NATO’s second-largest military, secures thanks to being part of the Western alliance. The truth is that Turkey’s aggression has gone hand in hand with NATO acceptance, even complicity. It’s no use Western countries lecturing Turkey, or Turkey complaining of Western hypocrisy: They are in it together. Whatever happens with the alliance’s expansion — whether the Kurds are sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical expediency or not — this should be a moment of clarity. In a world of war, no country has a monopoly on violence. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Turkey shows what NATO really is

Swedish and Finnish delegations are in Turkey to discuss their differences regarding their membership bids to join NATO after Ankara voiced concerns over the Nordic countries’ support for terrorist groups.

Swedish, Finnish delegations in Turkey to discuss NATO bids

Sweden and Finland are trying to overcome Turkey's strong objections to the Nordic nations bids to join NATO. Swedish and Finnish delegations visited Turkey after submitting their written applications to join NATO last week.

'Talks will clarify misunderstandings,' Sweden and Finland attempt to overcome Turkey's objection

Delegations from Sweden and Finland are set to meet Turkish officials today, the meeting comes with the hope of clearing up differences with Ankara after Turkey opposed Sweden and Finland's bid to join NATO.

Sweden, Finland delegations hope to woo Turkey over NATO bid

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who has opposed Sweden and Finland joining NATO, held phone calls with the Sweden and Finland leaders. He has raised concerns about Ankara.

Russia-Ukraine war: Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan calls Swedish & Finnish leaders

Extensions over Finland and Sweden's NATO membership bid continue to intensify. Russia has now halted natural gas supplies to Finland in what is believed to be a retaliatory move by Moscow to put pressure on Finland.

Kremlin turns off taps to Finland, move to counter NATO expansion plan?

Nordic countries Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership. However, Turkey is the lone roadblock to their NATO bids. US President Biden said that new NATO members are not a threat.

US President Joe Biden: New NATO members are not a threat

The conundrum over NATO entry continues. US, NATO are ready to welcome Sweden & Finland into the alliance but Turkey is blocking their applications. Analysts say that Turkey is using its position in NATO to extract compensations. There will be political pressure on Turkey if it blocks the applications. Turkey’s veto may be used as leverage against existing NATO members. What does Turkey want?

Turkey, NATO & US: The big chaos over Sweden & Finland alliance bids

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland have mulled applying for NATO membership. However, Turkey has blocked their early vote to join the NATO alliance.

Turkey blocks Sweden and Finland's early vote to join NATO

The number of NATO troops stationed on the alliance's eastern frontier has nearly doubled since last year, reaching 40,000. There were 4,650 troops under direct NATO command in February 2021, a year before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, according to NATO records. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, these soldiers were assigned to four multinational battlegroups.

Then Russia began deploying troops and capabilities along its shared border with Ukraine, accelerating these moves at the end of last year and beginning of this year, claiming it was a defensive move in response to Ukraine's NATO ambitions and the trans-Atlantic alliance's eastward expansion since the 1990s.

NATO and its 30 members bolstered their eastern locations with more soldiers and capabilities in response to Russia's troop buildup.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-backs-finland-and-swedens-historic-nato-application-480234" hreflang="en">Biden backs Finland and Sweden's 'historic' NATO application</a>

There were 40,000 allied forces under direct NATO command a month after Russia's invasion of Ukraine began, with existing battlegroups dramatically strengthened — Poland's increased from 1,010 men to 10,500 — and four new battlegroups established in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Watch:&nbsp;Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Over 250 Ukrainians from Azovstal are in Russian captivity

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-conflict-over-250-ukrainians-from-azovstal-are-in-russian-captivity-480054/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Furthermore, under bilateral agreements, numerous European countries have requested additional US troops, raising the total number of American soldiers in Europe to around 100,000, the highest level since 2005.

As a result of Russia's aggression, European NATO members have pledged to dramatically increase their defence spending in order to meet the alliance's aim of 2% of GDP. Members of NATO have also begun a "reset" of their policy, promising to enhance deployments and capabilities on the ground, at sea, and in the air. At a conference in June, more specifics on this approach will be revealed.

Furthermore, two European nations, Sweden and Finland, have made formal requests to join the defence alliance, thus doubling the length of the union's shared border with Russia.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The number of NATO troops stationed on the alliance's eastern frontier has nearly doubled since last year, reaching 40,000. There were 4,650 troops under direct NATO command in February 2021, a year before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, according to NATO records.

The number of NATO troops stationed on the alliance's eastern frontier has nearly doubled since last year, reaching 40,000. There were 4,650 troops under direct NATO command in February 2021, a year before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, according to NATO records. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, these soldiers were assigned to four multinational battlegroups. Then Russia began deploying troops and capabilities along its shared border with Ukraine, accelerating these moves at the end of last year and beginning of this year, claiming it was a defensive move in response to Ukraine's NATO ambitions and the trans-Atlantic alliance's eastward expansion since the 1990s. NATO and its 30 members bolstered their eastern locations with more soldiers and capabilities in response to Russia's troop buildup. Also Read: Biden backs Finland and Sweden's 'historic' NATO application There were 40,000 allied forces under direct NATO command a month after Russia's invasion of Ukraine began, with existing battlegroups dramatically strengthened — Poland's increased from 1,010 men to 10,500 — and four new battlegroups established in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Watch: Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Over 250 Ukrainians from Azovstal are in Russian captivity × Furthermore, under bilateral agreements, numerous European countries have requested additional US troops, raising the total number of American soldiers in Europe to around 100,000, the highest level since 2005. As a result of Russia's aggression, European NATO members have pledged to dramatically increase their defence spending in order to meet the alliance's aim of 2% of GDP. Members of NATO have also begun a "reset" of their policy, promising to enhance deployments and capabilities on the ground, at sea, and in the air. At a conference in June, more specifics on this approach will be revealed. Furthermore, two European nations, Sweden and Finland, have made formal requests to join the defence alliance, thus doubling the length of the union's shared border with Russia. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Ukraine war: NATO now has 40,000 soldiers on Europe's border with Russia

After holding out for nearly 90 days, the city of Mariupol surrendered to Russian forces. Hours later, Finland and Sweden officially submitted their application to join NATO. Palki Sharma tells you how Russia's war is changing European security considerations.

Gravitas: Finland and Sweden submit NATO application

The war in Ukraine has entered a new phase.

It is no secret that the initial invasion went badly for Russia. Expecting easy victories, the Russian Army inflicted terrible destruction — especially in its shelling of cities — but for the most part failed to take territory outside the southeast of the country. Ukrainian resistance was fierce. After six weeks of war, undermanned Russian forces were made to retreat from Kyiv and its suburbs.

In the hope of winning new victories, Russia has now confined its forces to the south and east of Ukraine. The main battles are taking place in small towns and villages along the Donets River. Russia talks of cutting off the Ukrainian Army from the Donbas, but so far, its forces have made slow progress advancing from the Black Sea coast.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-has-turned-off-gas-supply-in-transit-points-says-ukraine-478138">Russia has turned off gas supply in transit points, says Ukraine</a>

In response, the United States and its allies have also shifted their position. At first, the Western support for Ukraine was mainly designed to defend against the invasion. It is now set on a far grander ambition: to weaken Russia itself. Presented as a common-sense response to Russian aggression, the shift, in fact, amounts to a significant escalation.

By expanding support to Ukraine across the board and shelving any diplomatic effort to stop the fighting, the United States and its allies have greatly increased the danger of an even larger conflict. They are taking a risk far out of step with any realistic strategic gain.

Russia’s more limited focus has proved more manageable for its armed forces. The bloody siege of Mariupol is, for practical purposes, now complete, and Russia has secured the town of Izium while bombarding minor cities. But these advances, which have come at a cost, are limited. The likelihood of Russian territorial advances far from Crimea or the Donbas is now remote.

The shift from general to limited conquest was already a concession on Russia’s part. The Russian leadership has blamed a single factor: It claims to be fighting not just Ukraine but the NATO system in Eastern Europe. Hubris and clumsy tactics are more to the point. Yet there is no denying that the United States, Britain, Poland and other European NATO members have been parties to the conflict from the outset.

Watch |&nbsp;Russia-Ukraine conflict to fuel food crisis in Africa

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-conflict-to-fuel-food-crisis-in-africa-478014/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

It is not just military transports and trucks carrying tens of thousands of antiaircraft and antiarmor weapons to Ukrainian fighters. The United States has also provided real-time intelligence, reportedly including targeting information on the location of Russian forces. Though the Pentagon has disputed the extent of intelligence sharing, leaks have been remarkably revealing. We now know the United States provided the tracking intelligence that led to the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. More striking still, U.S. intelligence agencies provided critical targeting for battlefield assassinations of Russian generals.

This was already a significant form of participation in the war. But the United States has since shifted its strategy to push Russia further. The early U.S. response to the invasion was simple: Supply the defenders and apply America’s unique financial weaponry to the Russian economy. The new strategy — call it bleed Russia — is quite different. The underlying idea is that the United States and its allies should seek to recover more from the rubble of Kharkiv and Kramatorsk than the survival of Ukraine as a polity or even a symbolic frustration of Russian aggression.

Top officials have made that quite clear. The U.S. secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, has said the goal is “to see Russia weakened.” The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Ukraine is defending “democracy writ large for the world.” Britain’s foreign minister, Liz Truss, was explicit about widening the conflict to take in Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia, such as Crimea, when she spoke of evicting Russia from “the whole of Ukraine.” This is both an expansion of the battlefield and a transformation of the war.

Whereas once the primary Western objective was to defend against the invasion, it has become the permanent strategic attrition of Russia. The outline of the new policy began to emerge on April 13, when the Pentagon called a convocation of the eight biggest American arms companies to prepare arms transfers on a grand scale. The result was the pledge made by President Biden on April 28 that the United States would provide four times as much military aid to Ukraine as it had already supplied since the beginning of the conflict — a promise made good by a proposed aid package for Ukraine worth $39.8 billion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-pushing-back-russians-from-kharkiv-zelensky-478089">Ukraine pushing back Russians from Kharkiv: Zelensky</a>

This strategic shift has coincided with the abandonment of diplomatic efforts. Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were always fraught but contained moments of promise. They have now stalled completely. Russia bears its fair share of responsibility, of course. But European channels to Moscow have been all but severed, and there is no serious effort from the United States to seek diplomatic progress, let alone cease-fires.

When I was in Ukraine during the first weeks of the war, even staunch Ukrainian nationalists expressed views far more pragmatic than those that are routine in America now. Talk of neutral status for Ukraine and internationally monitored plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk has been jettisoned in favor of bombast and grandstanding.

The war was dangerous and destructive enough in its initial form. The combination of expanded strategic aims and scotched negotiations has made it more dangerous still. At present, the only message to Russia is: There is no way out. Though President Vladimir Putin did not declare general conscription in his Victory Day speech on May 9, a conventional escalation of this kind is still possible.

Nuclear weapons are discussed in easy tones, not least on Russian television. The risk of cities being reduced to corium remains low without NATO deployment in Ukraine, but accident and miscalculation cannot be discounted. And the conflict takes place at a time when most of the Cold War arms control agreements between the United States and Russia have been allowed to lapse.

A weakened Russia was a likely outcome of the war even before the shift in U.S. policy. Russia’s economic position has deteriorated. Far from a commodity superpower, its undersized domestic industry is struggling and is dependent on technology imports that are now inaccessible.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/hypersonics-missile-strikes-russias-assault-on-ukraine-in-numbers-478150">Hypersonics &amp; missile strikes: Russia's assault on Ukraine in numbers</a>

What’s more, the invasion has led directly to greater military spending in second- and third-tier European powers. The number of NATO troops in Eastern Europe has grown tenfold, and a Nordic expansion of the organization is likely. A general rearmament of Europe is taking place, driven not by desire for autonomy from American power but in service to it. For the United States, this should be success enough. It is unclear what more there is to gain by weakening Russia, beyond fantasies of regime change.

Ukraine’s future depends on the course of the fighting in the Donbas and perhaps the south. The physical destruction of the east is already well underway. Ukrainian casualties are not insignificant; estimates of the number killed and wounded vary widely, but it is certainly in the tens of thousands. Russia has destroyed whatever sense of shared heritage remained before the invasion.

But the longer the war, the worse the damage to Ukraine and the greater the risk of escalation. A decisive military result in eastern Ukraine may prove elusive. Yet the less dramatic outcome of a festering stalemate is hardly better. Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-covers-leg-with-blanket-as-health-rumours-swirl-on-victory-day-477866">Putin covers leg with blanket as health rumours swirl on Victory Day</a>

Diplomatic efforts ought to be the centerpiece of a new Ukraine strategy. Instead, the war’s boundaries are being expanded and the war itself recast as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, in which the Donbas is the frontier of freedom. This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The war in Ukraine has entered a new phase. It is no secret that the initial invasion went badly for Russia. Expecting easy victories, the Russian Army inflicted terrible destruction — especially in its shelling of cities — but for the most part failed to take territory outside the southeast of the country.

The war in Ukraine has entered a new phase. It is no secret that the initial invasion went badly for Russia. Expecting easy victories, the Russian Army inflicted terrible destruction — especially in its shelling of cities — but for the most part failed to take territory outside the southeast of the country. Ukrainian resistance was fierce. After six weeks of war, undermanned Russian forces were made to retreat from Kyiv and its suburbs. In the hope of winning new victories, Russia has now confined its forces to the south and east of Ukraine. The main battles are taking place in small towns and villages along the Donets River. Russia talks of cutting off the Ukrainian Army from the Donbas, but so far, its forces have made slow progress advancing from the Black Sea coast. Also read | Russia has turned off gas supply in transit points, says Ukraine In response, the United States and its allies have also shifted their position. At first, the Western support for Ukraine was mainly designed to defend against the invasion. It is now set on a far grander ambition: to weaken Russia itself. Presented as a common-sense response to Russian aggression, the shift, in fact, amounts to a significant escalation. By expanding support to Ukraine across the board and shelving any diplomatic effort to stop the fighting, the United States and its allies have greatly increased the danger of an even larger conflict. They are taking a risk far out of step with any realistic strategic gain. Russia’s more limited focus has proved more manageable for its armed forces. The bloody siege of Mariupol is, for practical purposes, now complete, and Russia has secured the town of Izium while bombarding minor cities. But these advances, which have come at a cost, are limited. The likelihood of Russian territorial advances far from Crimea or the Donbas is now remote. The shift from general to limited conquest was already a concession on Russia’s part. The Russian leadership has blamed a single factor: It claims to be fighting not just Ukraine but the NATO system in Eastern Europe. Hubris and clumsy tactics are more to the point. Yet there is no denying that the United States, Britain, Poland and other European NATO members have been parties to the conflict from the outset. Watch | Russia-Ukraine conflict to fuel food crisis in Africa It is not just military transports and trucks carrying tens of thousands of antiaircraft and antiarmor weapons to Ukrainian fighters. The United States has also provided real-time intelligence, reportedly including targeting information on the location of Russian forces. Though the Pentagon has disputed the extent of intelligence sharing, leaks have been remarkably revealing. We now know the United States provided the tracking intelligence that led to the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. More striking still, U.S. intelligence agencies provided critical targeting for battlefield assassinations of Russian generals. This was already a significant form of participation in the war. But the United States has since shifted its strategy to push Russia further. The early U.S. response to the invasion was simple: Supply the defenders and apply America’s unique financial weaponry to the Russian economy. The new strategy — call it bleed Russia — is quite different. The underlying idea is that the United States and its allies should seek to recover more from the rubble of Kharkiv and Kramatorsk than the survival of Ukraine as a polity or even a symbolic frustration of Russian aggression. Top officials have made that quite clear. The U.S. secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, has said the goal is “to see Russia weakened.” The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Ukraine is defending “democracy writ large for the world.” Britain’s foreign minister, Liz Truss, was explicit about widening the conflict to take in Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia, such as Crimea, when she spoke of evicting Russia from “the whole of Ukraine.” This is both an expansion of the battlefield and a transformation of the war. Whereas once the primary Western objective was to defend against the invasion, it has become the permanent strategic attrition of Russia. The outline of the new policy began to emerge on April 13, when the Pentagon called a convocation of the eight biggest American arms companies to prepare arms transfers on a grand scale. The result was the pledge made by President Biden on April 28 that the United States would provide four times as much military aid to Ukraine as it had already supplied since the beginning of the conflict — a promise made good by a proposed aid package for Ukraine worth $39.8 billion. Also read | Ukraine pushing back Russians from Kharkiv: Zelensky This strategic shift has coincided with the abandonment of diplomatic efforts. Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were always fraught but contained moments of promise. They have now stalled completely. Russia bears its fair share of responsibility, of course. But European channels to Moscow have been all but severed, and there is no serious effort from the United States to seek diplomatic progress, let alone cease-fires. When I was in Ukraine during the first weeks of the war, even staunch Ukrainian nationalists expressed views far more pragmatic than those that are routine in America now. Talk of neutral status for Ukraine and internationally monitored plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk has been jettisoned in favor of bombast and grandstanding. The war was dangerous and destructive enough in its initial form. The combination of expanded strategic aims and scotched negotiations has made it more dangerous still. At present, the only message to Russia is: There is no way out. Though President Vladimir Putin did not declare general conscription in his Victory Day speech on May 9, a conventional escalation of this kind is still possible. Nuclear weapons are discussed in easy tones, not least on Russian television. The risk of cities being reduced to corium remains low without NATO deployment in Ukraine, but accident and miscalculation cannot be discounted. And the conflict takes place at a time when most of the Cold War arms control agreements between the United States and Russia have been allowed to lapse. A weakened Russia was a likely outcome of the war even before the shift in U.S. policy. Russia’s economic position has deteriorated. Far from a commodity superpower, its undersized domestic industry is struggling and is dependent on technology imports that are now inaccessible. Also read | Hypersonics & missile strikes: Russia's assault on Ukraine in numbers What’s more, the invasion has led directly to greater military spending in second- and third-tier European powers. The number of NATO troops in Eastern Europe has grown tenfold, and a Nordic expansion of the organization is likely. A general rearmament of Europe is taking place, driven not by desire for autonomy from American power but in service to it. For the United States, this should be success enough. It is unclear what more there is to gain by weakening Russia, beyond fantasies of regime change. Ukraine’s future depends on the course of the fighting in the Donbas and perhaps the south. The physical destruction of the east is already well underway. Ukrainian casualties are not insignificant; estimates of the number killed and wounded vary widely, but it is certainly in the tens of thousands. Russia has destroyed whatever sense of shared heritage remained before the invasion. But the longer the war, the worse the damage to Ukraine and the greater the risk of escalation. A decisive military result in eastern Ukraine may prove elusive. Yet the less dramatic outcome of a festering stalemate is hardly better. Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants. Also read | Putin covers leg with blanket as health rumours swirl on Victory Day Diplomatic efforts ought to be the centerpiece of a new Ukraine strategy. Instead, the war’s boundaries are being expanded and the war itself recast as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, in which the Donbas is the frontier of freedom. This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

America and its allies want to bleed Russia. They really shouldn’t.

After reports claimed Turkey President Erdogan had blocked talks with Finland and Sweden to join NATO, US President Biden backed the bids from the Nordic countries.

"The United States will work with Finland and Sweden to remain vigilant against any threats to our shared security, and to deter and confront aggression or the threat of aggression" while their bid is considered, Biden said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-blocks-talks-with-finland-sweden-on-nato-membership-report-480173">Also Read |&nbsp;Turkey blocks talks with Finland, Sweden on NATO membership: Report</a>

Sweden and Finland had jointly bid for NATO's membership on Tuesday. Biden said he strongly supports the "historic applications".

President Erdogan has however criticised both countries of harbouring terrorists referring to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) which Ankara has designated a terrorist organisation.

Watch: Finland and Sweden's NATO membership bids

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/finland-and-swedens-historic-nato-membership-bids-480110/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Erodgan went a step further and had asked the officials of the two countries not to "bother" coming to Turkey for talks.

Sweden and Finland had maintained neutral status in European conflicts for decades, however, after President Putin ordered the "special military operation" against Ukraine pressure grew on both countries to join NATO.

US secretary of state Anthony Blinken had earlier backed Sweden and Finland's bid to join the European military alliance as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserted the process will be "swift and smooth".

(With inputs from Agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

After reports claimed Turkey President Erdogan had blocked talks with Finland and Sweden to join NATO, US President Biden backed the bids from the Nordic countries.

After reports claimed Turkey President Erdogan had blocked talks with Finland and Sweden to join NATO, US President Biden backed the bids from the Nordic countries. "The United States will work with Finland and Sweden to remain vigilant against any threats to our shared security, and to deter and confront aggression or the threat of aggression" while their bid is considered, Biden said. Also Read | Turkey blocks talks with Finland, Sweden on NATO membership: Report Sweden and Finland had jointly bid for NATO's membership on Tuesday. Biden said he strongly supports the "historic applications". President Erdogan has however criticised both countries of harbouring terrorists referring to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) which Ankara has designated a terrorist organisation. Watch: Finland and Sweden's NATO membership bids Erodgan went a step further and had asked the officials of the two countries not to "bother" coming to Turkey for talks. Sweden and Finland had maintained neutral status in European conflicts for decades, however, after President Putin ordered the "special military operation" against Ukraine pressure grew on both countries to join NATO. US secretary of state Anthony Blinken had earlier backed Sweden and Finland's bid to join the European military alliance as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserted the process will be "swift and smooth". (With inputs from Agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Biden backs Finland and Sweden's 'historic' NATO application

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu is about to meet US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington on Wednesday, the latest step in the process of repairing ties between the two NATO allies.

Turkish foreign minister to meet US Secretary of State in Washington

Turkey opposed NATO's plan to admit Sweden and Finland as members of the military alliance. Is Erdogan using the opportunity to secure concessions from the West? What is the West willing to offer Turkey? Molly Gambhir tells you.

Gravitas: Turkey derails NATO's Nordic expansion

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has restarted his opposition to Finland and Sweden joining the NATO. Turkey has also asked both countries to extradite suspected PKK members.

Turkey threatens to block Sweden, Finland NATO bids

nato

Nato, News on Nato, stories on Nato, articles on Nato, Nato stories at Wion, Nato news, Nato latest news