Finnish FM Pekka Haavisto (l), his Swedish counterpart Ann Linde (r), and NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg at a media conference following the signing of the NATO Accession Protocol for Finland and Sweden in Brussels on July 5, 2022.

Europe’s security environment has changed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Neutrality no longer guarantees safety from Russian aggression. In a historic turning point for Finland and Sweden, both Nordic countries have applied to join NATO. Although their joint accession would strengthen NATO’s security architecture, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is threatening to veto their applications. Unfortunately, Turkey continues to destabilize the alliance at a time when NATO needs unity the most. If President Erdogan blocks Finland and Sweden from joining NATO, the free world should expel Turkey from the alliance.[Ed. note: This article was written before Turkey suggested it may admit Finland without Sweden.]

Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that members must strengthen their democratic institutions, promote conditions of stability and well-being and eliminate conflicts in their international economic policies. In his last term, President Erdogan has done the exact opposite: he has weakened Turkey’s democratic institutions, implemented contradictory international economic policies and destabilized the alliance. There is no shortage of examples showing that Turkey has violated this provision of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Turkey has blackmailed Sweden and Finland, imprisoned more journalists than Russia, harbored members of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, threatened American soldiers in Syria, threatened to invade NATO partner Greece, violated the UN Security Council arms embargo on Libya, bought Russian military equipment and compromised the F-35 stealth fighter program, helped ISIS militants cross Turkey’s border into Syria, sponsored Azerbaijan’s ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, and helped Russia and Iran evade sanctions. The list goes on and on, but one thing is certain: Turkey has violated Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

For most countries, NATO membership has served as a tool for democratization and a springboard for accession to the European Union. This is not the case for Turkey. Despite being a member of NATO since 1952 and an EU candidate since 1999, Turkey has failed to meet the criteria for accession. Given Turkey’s financial crisis, democratic erosion, continued occupation of Cyprus and consistent threats against Greece, it is unlikely that Turkey will ever join the EU. Ankara is aware of this reality and has accounted for it in its strategic calculations. For Turkey, NATO membership is not a tool for democratization or a stepping stone to join the EU but an instrument to increase its influence. This allows Ankara to pursue Turkish national interests by being a poor partner to its allies instead of a direct opponent of the alliance.

Excluding Turkey from NATO for violating Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty would obviously have serious consequences for the alliance. It would, for example, reduce NATO’s ability to project power in the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Middle East. The alliance would lose its second largest army “on paper”. Access to the Turkish Straits and the Black Sea would be restricted. Invaluable intelligence sharing between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) would most likely end. Finally, Washington’s reduced influence over Ankara would also increase the likelihood of Turkey invading Greece.

However, there are short, medium and long term solutions to most of these problems. The alliance maintains access to the Black Sea through Romania and Bulgaria. Goods could bypass the Turkish Straits by transiting to the Romanian port of Constanta or the Bulgarian port of Burgas and then transferred by rail to the Greek port of Alexandroupoli for export to international markets. Establishing an agreement with Nicosia could replace the Incirlik airbase and allow the alliance to project power across the Middle East. Further down the road, potential Ukrainian, Georgian or Armenian membership – all signatories to NATO’s Partnership for Peace – could give the Alliance a presence deeper in the Black Sea and the Caucasus once again.

Despite the implications of Turkey’s expulsion for NATO, it would do much more to weaken Turkey’s international standing. After all, Turkey’s ambition for the 21st century is to be a global power at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and NATO membership gives Ankara the leverage needed to achieve this goal at the expense of its allies. In contrast to Turkey’s hegemonic design, Finland and Sweden are full-fledged liberal democracies that share NATO’s common interests and democratic values. Helsinki and Stockholm have made the difficult but necessary decision to abandon neutrality in favor of NATO membership. This constitutes a critical moment in both Finnish and Swedish history.

For Turkey, NATO membership is not a tool for democratization or a stepping stone to join the EU but an instrument to increase its influence

On the one hand, Finland has been neutral since the end of the Second World War. Despite legitimate grievances related to territories ceded to the Soviet Union in the postwar period, Finland maintained its neutrality throughout the Cold War.

Today, Finland shares a 1,340 kilometer long border with Russia. This increases Helsinki’s risk of being invaded by Moscow. To deter Russian aggression, Finland’s accession would put Saint Petersburg – Russia’s second largest city – within 200 kilometers of NATO’s borders from a second vantage point. In addition, Finland has a sophisticated defense industry, boasts the largest artillery arsenal in Europe, has a conscription system and can have up to 1 million reservists ready for battle within weeks.

On the other hand, Sweden’s neutrality dates back to the Napoleonic Wars. For centuries, Stockholm relied on Finland to function as a buffer state between Russia and Sweden.

This allowed Sweden to pursue a more neutral foreign policy, and even avoided entering World War II because of it. Sweden has a conscription system, has a sophisticated defense industry and boasts the world’s fifth strongest navy. In addition, Sweden’s accession would give NATO a permanent presence on Gotland. Gotland’s strategic location in the middle of the Baltic Sea is crucial for regional undersea communication cables, surveillance of maritime transport, installation of anti-aircraft systems and projection of power into the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. This would make the Baltic Sea another NATO lake in Europe.

To be clear: NATO is more than just a military alliance. It is a community of liberal democracies with common interests and shared democratic values. Unfortunately, President Erdogan has repeatedly shown that Turkey does not share these interests or democratic values. To make matters worse, Turkey continues to destabilize NATO at a time when the Alliance needs unity the most.

Yet Finland and Sweden refuse to compromise the rule of law in their respective countries to appease President Erdogan. Stockholm and Helsinki will not be blackmailed by an autocrat, even if it means sacrificing their bids for NATO membership. For that reason alone, Finland and Sweden deserve to be members of the Alliance. If President Erdogan blocks their applications to join NATO, the free world should expel Turkey from the alliance. Enough is enough.

George Monastiriakos is a bar candidate who writes about politics and global affairs. He can be reached on Twitter @monasticriakos.