With the Russian war of conquest in Ukraine, possibly expanding further -- creating urgent need to expand NATO, and to accept the nations of Sweden and Finland into the fold -- it is regrettable that Turkey refuses to allow their membership.

Perhaps it is time to remove Turkey from NATO, rather than forfeit the extraordinary value that the final Scandinavian non-Members would bring to the alliance.

ASSET?

To be sure, Turkey is an important strategic part of NATO. It is a large nation with a significant military force. As the alliance's only major Muslim nation, and NATO's only next-door neighbor to the Middle East and Central Asia, it gives NATO vital credibility, trust and inroads with those regions, and the rest of the Muslim world. As (at present) the only major NATO country bordering Russia, by land, it also gives a significant direct point-of-contact with Russia (both an asset and a risk).

More importantly, Turkey straddles (and thus potentially controls) the Black Sea's only water route to the Mediterranean Sea and to the oceans of the world -- thus controlling the global ocean access of Black Sea countries, both NATO and non-NATO -- including Russia, whose only warm-water global ports (reliably free of ice year-round) are on the Black Sea.

Further, Turkey has rather gracefully absorbed, by far, the most refugees from the Syrian Civil War, and America's long wars with Afghanistan and Iraq -- 2,000,000 -- while the U.S. refused to even welcome 20,000. And Turkey has (slowly) come to the defense of ISIS victims in Syria that the U.S. could not, or would not, defend.

LIABILITY?

But Turkey has often been a problematic NATO member -- as when it invaded Cyprus in 1974, nearly triggering a war with neighboring NATO member Greece. And Turkish warplanes have continued to violate Greek airspace repeatedly for decades.

And, in recent years, Turkey has become both advantageous and problematic in various other ways.

Turkey has, in recent years, become an increasingly conservative Muslim nation, dispensing with its long tradition of constitutional secularism and human rights protections. The country has become so authoritarian, under its populist elected dictator Erdogan, that it would not be eligible to become a member of NATO, if it applied today. These moves are counter to the values of all other NATO members, posing a moral dilemma for NATO. Under Erdogan, Turkey has crept towards totalitarianism, and descended down into the corruption and economic distress that inevitably follows.

Turkey has stridently opposed the growing global recognition that Turkey had committed genocide against neighboring Armenia over a century ago -- and has been quite hostile towards against any mention of the event by any NATO country (despite the human rights principles and historical honesty held rather dear in the rest of NATO). And, in an almost spiteful defiance of this issue, it has backed Muslim Azerbaijan in its aggressive moves against Christian Armenia.

And Turkey hasn't always been the most loyal and cooperative NATO military ally, as in Syria (where it has accommodated ISIS warriors, and wants to attack U.S. allies fighting them, the Kurdish YPG militia), or as in its recent decision to purchase Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.

It has quarreled bitterly with the U.S., demanding extradition (to certain imprisonment or death) a Turkish dissident whom Turkey claims guided an attempted (and failed) coup against Erdogan -- despite official U.S. disagreement. The coup attempt, itself, raises important questions about Turkey's stability and national unity. So does its constant struggles with its independence-minded Kurdish minority in the nation's southeast.

And, to placate Saudi Arabia's government, with whom it seeks better relations, Turkey has dropped its court case against the apparent Saudi-government assassination of dissident Saudi journalist Adnon Khashoggi -- an American-resident writer at the time he was murdered during a trip to Turkey. The subtext: American journalists are less important to Turkey than an alliance with their killer.

(In fairness, even U.S. President Biden went, hat-in-hand, to Saudi Arabia shortly afterward, attempting, in vain, to get more Saudi oil to counter the Russian oil embargoes of the Ukraine conflict.)

BOTH?

Now, in the Ukrainian crisis, Turkey is both a help and a hindrance. It has provided valuable drones to Ukraine, some of which have proven effective against Russian tanks. And under international treaty governing the transit of ships between the Meditteranean and the Black Sea (through the Turkish Straits of Dardenelles and the Bosporus), it has blocked most Russian warships from entering, and thus from threatening Ukraine.

But this month it has negotiated with Russia about facilitating the export of grain from Ukraine -- urgently needed abroad -- without consulting with Ukraine (to the concern of Ukraine and NATO).

Sweden and Finland have, by comparison, been rather faithful, reliable and compatible friends to the rest of NATO -- without the benefits of NATO membership.

HOW TO DUMP TURKEY?

NATO membership is only by unanimous consent. That used to be a small matter when NATO was about a dozen members, but now with dozens, its harder to get unanimity. Expelling Erdogan's Turkey might require simply having all other members withdraw from the alliance, ending its existence, then reorganizing a new NATO ("NATO II"?) with the agreeing members, plus Sweden and Finland -- Turkey left out. Not an easy or orderly way to expel a country, but do-able.

But then what of the other NATO countries who have failed, in recent years, to live up to the entry standards of NATO? As Poland and Hungary slide away from democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, would they be considered "eligible" to join "NATO II"?

Worse, most NATO countries, as proper democracies, would require their legislatures to ratify the NATO II treaty. In today's political climate -- with narcissitic nationalism replacing global cooperation -- it would become a wild political free-for-all, as far-right and far-left parties, and ruthlessly opportunisitc populists (all increasingly powerful across Europe) decide to take advantage of the moment to raise hell, and block their own country's entry into the new NATO.

Could the new NATO map wind up looking like a checkerboard of participating and non-particpating countries? It's not a far-fetched fear, after Brexit, Scottish independence movements, isolationist French and German far-right parties growing powerful, while Italy has moved its neo-Facist parties into the government.

And don't forget the resurgence of isolationism in America, whose last president grumbled about maybe pulling the U.S. completely out of NATO.

Expelling Turkey by NATO dismemberment-and-reassembly could prove a catastrophic end to NATO, altogether. And, by consequence, the end of the independence of Ukraine and other states bordering Russia.

BETTER PARTNERSHIPS?

Still, absolutely every government in NATO -- but Turkey's -- is delighted that the two remaining Scandinavian non-member countries (both staunchly western in values and culture, with thoroughly advanced economies and militaries) are now willing to commit themselves to the alliance.

What to do about this impasse?

For many years, now, NATO has cooperated with Sweden and Finland in joint training exercises, intelligence sharing, and military coordination, in an informal alliance. While not as good as NATO membership, it has helped deter Russian aggression against them, and against NATO.

If that informal relationship could work with Sweden and Finland, perhaps it's time to move Turkey out of NATO into a similar relationship, and bring more-compatible Sweden and Finland fully into NATO.

The result would be a much more rational alliance, based almost entirely on common values and similar foreign relations. And it would send a stout, badly needed warning to some shaky NATO members (like Poland and Hungary) who are toying with undermining human rights, and drifting towards authoritarianism, in contradiction of the political values that have so long been the common bond of NATO.

This could, of course, push Turkey into Russia's orbit -- but Turkey is a stubborn, proud and feisty nation, not easily seduced nor intimidated. In fact, once outside of NATO, Turkey might consider formal or informal alliance with other powers in the region, ranging from Ukraine and Georgia to Lebanon, (nuclear-armed) Israel and Egypt -- possibly creating a useful buffer between NATO and its problematic neighbors to the east, and even shouldering some of the burden of making peace in the region.

Most importantly, it would put an end to the endless stress, strain and uncertainty that Turkey has brought to NATO -- allowing NATO to provide a more unified, reliable, consistent and credible bulwark against its adversaries, both present and future.

__________________