Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: Sweden gets NATO, Turkey gets F-16s?

Diplomacy Watch: Sweden gets NATO, Turkey gets F-16s?

The Biden administration did some horse-trading to get a win at the summit in Vilnius, but obstacles remain.

Europe

In a sudden turn, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced Monday that he would support Sweden’s bid to join NATO, clearing the path for Stockholm to become the alliance’s 32nd member as soon as this year.

President Joe Biden, usually wary of appearing close to Erdogan giving his autocratic tendencies, had nothing but praise for the Turkish leader. “I want to thank you for your diplomacy and your courage to take that on,” Biden said in a joint press availability at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. “And I want to thank you for your leadership.”

Shortly after Erdogan’s announcement, the Biden administration said the U.S. will move forward with plans to sell $20 billion worth of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey, apparently fulfilling one of Ankara’s key demands for unblocking Stockholm’s bid. 

The decisions came after a weekend of whirlwind talks between U.S. and Turkish officials, including three calls between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. The timing — less than two months after Erdogan won reelection in his closest campaign to date — lends credence to the argument that Turkish opposition to Sweden’s entry was, at least in part, for domestic consumption.

But there is reason to believe this saga is not over yet. As Amberin Zaman noted in Al-Monitor, Turkey’s parliament will likely not vote on Swedish accession to NATO until October since the legislative body goes into a long recess after next week. That leaves more than two months for Erdogan to renege on his promise or seek further concessions from the U.S. and other NATO members.

And another hurdle looms on the other side of the Atlantic. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the outspoken chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been pushing to block the F-16 sale over concerns about Turkish human rights violations and aggression toward Greece, a fellow NATO ally. And Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Menendez’s Republican counterpart on the committee, said Turkey’s about-face on Sweden only means it’s “time to talk about the F-16s,” suggesting that further discussions — and concessions — could be required.

The Biden team has signaled that it takes these concerns seriously. “Sen. Menendez has an important voice in this,” said Jake Sullivan, Biden’s top foreign policy aide. “We will continue to stay in close touch with him.”

But those comments could be more about projecting party unity than any actual worry about Menendez blocking a sale. In practice, individual members of Congress have almost no way to stop the president from selling weapons to a foreign country, according to Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute.

“Menendez does not have the power to stop a sale by himself,” Cohen wrote on Twitter. “There are only three ways for Congress to stop a sale and they all require presidential buy-in.”

Two of those require a veto-proof majority, meaning that fully two-thirds of lawmakers in each chamber would have to vote against the deal. The third option is an informal hold that presidents can ignore at will, as former President Donald Trump did when he forced through a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia in 2018.

In other words, Biden is most likely held up in this case by concerns about publicly siding with Erdogan — a leader who many in the U.S. consider an authoritarian — at the expense of the administration’s friends at home. The resulting question is clear: Is Swedish accession to NATO worth the bad press?

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— At this week’s NATO summit, allies announced a series of new security guarantees for Ukraine, including promises to continue providing the country with military assistance in the long term, according to the Washington Post. Ukraine’s other big victory was the establishment of a Ukraine-NATO Council that further strengthens Kyiv’s relationship with the alliance. 

— But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not get the prize he had most hoped for before the summit: a specific timeline for Ukraine’s NATO accession. News that such a promise was unlikely caused Zelensky to lash out on Twitter, saying that NATO’s foot-dragging was further “motivation for Russia to continue its terror.” The United States and Germany reportedly remain opposed to Ukraine joining NATO while the war is still raging — a practical position given that the core of the alliance is mutual defense and its members have shown no desire to directly join the fight against Russia. And, according to the Washington Post, these more cautious members were less than thrilled with Zelensky’s Twitter tirade. The U.S. delegation was reportedly “furious” and considered removing an open-ended invitation for Kyiv to join NATO from the summit’s final communique. Though it’s unclear exactly what happened behind closed doors in Vilnius, Zelensky changed his tone by the end of the summit, calling the decision to waive certain membership requirements a “meaningful success for Ukraine.”

— France announced that it will send Ukraine long-range missiles, reigniting a debate over whether the U.S. should send similar weapons to help Kyiv hit targets deep behind the frontlines, according to the New York Times. The Times says some in the administration want to send at least a few ATACMS in a show of support for Ukraine, but others worry that such a move would raise the risk of escalation to a direct Russia-NATO war while drawing down America’s relatively small stockpiles of the long-range missiles.

— Czech President Petr Pavel said Tuesday that “whatever is achieved by the end of this year will be the baseline for negotiation” between Ukraine and Russia, according to the New York Times. Pavel added that, by next year, he expects a “decline of willingness to massively support Ukraine with more weapons,” which could force Kyiv to the negotiating table.

— The Biden administration faced blowback from allies for its decision to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine, according to Voice of America. Canada, Spain, Britain, and Germany — all of which have signed onto a treaty banning the controversial weapons — opposed the move. “No to cluster bombs and yes to the legitimate defense of Ukraine, which we understand should not be carried out with cluster bombs,” argued the Spanish government in a statement.

— The United Nations has offered to reconnect a Russian agricultural bank to the SWIFT international payment system if the Kremlin agrees to extend the Black Sea grain deal, which has allowed Ukraine to export agricultural products by ship despite the war, according to Reuters. The pitch comes as part of a last-ditch effort to save the deal, which is currently set to expire on Monday. If the agreement falls through, insurers may not be willing to indemnify cargo ships traveling through the Black Sea, which would cripple Ukrainian grain exports and further drive up the cost of food worldwide.

U.S. State Department news:

In a Monday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller defended Biden’s decision to provide Ukraine with cluster munitions. “We were faced with the decision of either allowing Ukraine to run low or potentially run out of ammunition [...] leaving the Ukrainians without the ability to defend themselves against those [Russian] munitions versus providing them these munitions with some very serious assurances that we got from the Ukrainians,” Miller said.


Europe
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.