Talk:Sweden–NATO relations

Update ratification section?
Turkey has now ratified the application, should this be updated? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Turkey has not yet ratified; they announced that they will do so, but it has not occurred yet. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they might soon. Should we get ready to change the article? Erdogan sent the ratification to parliment. ERBuermann (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Once it is ratified, the article can be updated. For Turkey, there are three internal steps before the deposit of the ratification: this last step officialises and concludes the process. There is no need to rush. Hetsre (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian Parliament final vote on Sweden, extraordinary session 31 July 2023
The Hungarian Parliament has scheduled a final accession vote for Sweden in an extraordinary session, 31 July 2023. I have added the date and reference in the article. Tdunsky (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Splitting article in half
I feel that there is enough in the ascension talks section to warrant standing on it's own. This article is getting rather bloated and drifting a bit from it's primary goal of conveying information on Sweden-NATO relations. Scu ba (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, as this is double the directive at WP:TOOLONG. There should probably be a standalone article about the accession talks for Finland and Sweden and a brief section in both articles could link to it. Will anyone do that work? Probably not. :/ ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Turkey hasn't ratified yet
Ratification isn't complete until the protocol is deposited. That may be tomorrow or next year. Theoretically even never. Until that happens, it's still 29 countries out of 31. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kwamikagami how do we know when the protocol is "deposited"? I assume it will happen tomorrow. But most mainstream sources have it as a done deal, since Erdogan signed off on it. Natg 19 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, this Reuters article is the only "correct" reporting Natg 19 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't know until it is announced(I think NATO does so). Erdogan has slow walked this entire process; his government could get on a plane right now and fly it to Washington, but he could also (figuratively) take a slow boat. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When ratification is official, this document will be updated https://www.state.gov/protocol-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-on-the-accession-of-sweden/ Hetsre (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since my hidden note has not worked, I've requested page protection. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Refs show it was deposited the other day. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The accession was approved, but it is not official until Turkey deposits in instruments of ratification in Washington. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref shows it was deposited the other day. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are confusing approval with with formally depositing the instruments of ratification with the US State Department in Washington. Someone from the Turkish government needs to do what Secretary Blinken did in this photo. [[File:Secretary Blinken Deposits the U.S. Instruments of Ratification (52294464683).jpg|thumb]] When that happens, their website will be updated. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Erdogan has slow walked this whole process, so formal depositing may not necessarily come quickly(though it could). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The move came just hours after Turkey deposited its “instrument of ratification” for Sweden’s accession to NATO with Washington, which is the repository for alliance documents and after several key members of Congress lifted their objections."
 * That sounds like they deposited the instruments of ratification. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your source for that statement? The State Department who is supposed to possess the documents seems to disagree with you. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The ref in the article. Why don't you read the ref in the article? — kwami (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article has 242 references. Could you please point out which one you are referring to? 331dot (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The AP article where it says the articles were deposited on 26 January 2024. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am scanning the references and not seeing such a reference, though I may be missing it in the sea of 242 references. Could you tell which number reference it is? If it's there, it's been somehow snuck in past the many edits and reversions on this article. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 234. It's the ref to the claim that it was deposited, where the Turkish approval rows were turned completely green in the table. — kwami (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So has someone told the State Department that Turkey gave them the documents? Because they haven't updated their website. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know who's maintaining the list. It's been inactive for quite a while, so maybe it's been neglected. It would make sense they'd deposit quickly if they get F16s out of it. — kwami (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the instrument has been deposited, it has been deposited. We don't need to wait for that one poor soul who has to update the PDF. When Greece deposited, the document wasn't updated for weeks. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that the practice here has been to go by the State Department, but in any event this seems to be worked out. I've asked that the protection be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated Turkey January 26, 2024

https://www.state.gov/protocol-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-on-the-accession-of-sweden/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netot (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The updated document confirms: Turkey deposited on January 26, 2024. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweden Into NATO?
Sweden is joining NATO. The evidence is here below.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/europe/turkey-vote-sweden-nato-intl/index.html

AAA 004 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please review this article carefully. Sweden is not yet in NATO.  Hungary still needs to approve, which is expected by the end of the month. Turkey has already approved. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian Ratification
There is an extraordinary issue for Hungarian Parliamentary Gazette one day after the parliament voted on Swedish ascension into NATO. If president have signed it into law, it should be published in this Gazette, however Gazette is in Hungarian and google will not translate the actual text that is in PDF. There are a lot of text there so Swedish ratification can be somewhere as well. Technically acting President can sign it into law as well, so they do not need to wait for next President inauguration.

Links to the Gazette below:

https://magyarkozlony.hu/

https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/d6656830451dceb108e34373d49cbf9926c8aa28/megtekintes 211.30.78.138 (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not reallly sure what the point you are trying to make is. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears they are saying that the Gazette might indicate that the Hungarian president gave assent to the ratification but that they cannot read it because it is in Hungarian. I do not read Hungarian either. Perhaps someone who does can confirm whether this is the case.  Ergo Sum  14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hasn't the president to react within five days after the vote of the parliament? Source: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/swedens-nato-membership-finally-secured-as-hungary-votes-yes/ --Stefan040780 (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the newly elected president, Tamás Sulyok, has to give his assent. He assumes office on 5 March.  Ergo Sum  16:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I downloaded the document and did a search for words like "Sweden" or "Swedish" in Hungarian (Svédország or svéd) and Nato. I'm pretty sure such words would have been present if the signing was mentioned in the doc. No matches were found. It seems that the IP was concerned that the signing was not on the agenda on the day following the vote. Reading Swedish sources, the vote of the parliament has to be signed by the president or the speaker of the house, and this will take a while. According to Zsolt Németh of the Hungarian parlament, this is a "technicality" and will be dealt with "in a matter of days". We will just have to wait and see (again...) when that happens. Cart (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With Finland it took exactly one day after the decision of the hungarian parliament when the president signed.--Stefan040780 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With Finland, every step in the ratification process went considerably faster than with Sweden. Compare the timelines. Cart (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hungary has not advised the US State Department which is the depository for the treaty of its acceptance of the protocol to add Sweden. The list of countries that have can be found here. It will become official when Hungary, the last holdout, does so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to parliament's website, "It is awaiting the signature of the President of the National Assembly". While the bill for Finland's accession was signed by the President of the National Assembly on the same day after the vote. 112.118.105.147 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're referring to by "google will not translate the actual text that is in PDF". Just to check, I keyed a phrase "A Magyar Nemzeti Bank elnőkének rendeleti, valamint az őnálló szabályozó szerv vezetőjének rendeletei" from the document into Google Translate and it translates just fine ("Decrees of the Governor of the National Bank of Hungary and decrees of the head of the competent regulatory body"). I'd say maybe you typed it wrong, but the translator is smart enough to pick up on typos. All I can say is try again and let us know what you find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:151F:0:0:0:193B (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way, just to add to my previous remarks: there are no instances of the word "NATO" or Sweden ("Svédország") or even of the root ("Svéd") in the document you cited, and no mention of anything to do with the matter of Sweden's entry into NATO listed in its table of contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:151F:0:0:0:193B (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked and indeed, Swedish bill is not even signed by the Speaker. Why are they taking so long? I thought acting President can sign bills too, otherwise why there is acting President. However they seem to act like there is no president and they possibly wait until new one is inaugurated.

Link to the Swedish bill below, still not signed as of now https://www.parlament.hu/web/guest/folyamatban-levo-torvenyjavaslatok?p_p_id=hu_parlament_cms_pair_portlet_PairProxy_INSTANCE_9xd2Wc9jP4z8&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_auth=RANE1dck&_hu_parlament_cms_pair_portlet_PairProxy_INSTANCE_9xd2Wc9jP4z8_pairAction=%2Finternet%2Fcplsql%2Fogy_irom.irom_adat%3Fp_ckl%3D42%26p_izon%3D638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.185 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Speaker and President both have 5 days to act (Constitution Art. 6(3)). 112.118.105.147 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5 working days or any days? 124.254.87.226 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The delay is a power-play, like so much else in these negotiations. They do it because they can. Keeping Sweden waiting is a way for some of these countries to assert themselves, domestically and internationally. Like bullies in a schoolyard might treat a new kid. Cart (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is confused. We say:
 * "As Katalin Novák had just resigned as President [of Hungary] over a pardon scandal, and the newly elected President Tamás Sulyok would only be sworn in 5 March 2024, the ratification was instead signed on 2 March by the temporarily acting President of the National Assembly Sándor Lezsák."
 * That means that the acting pres of the assembly signed for the president of Hungary, so no more signatures are needed. That's obviously not the case. So which parts of the quoted passage are incorrect? — kwami (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think two signatures are required: one from the Speaker of the national assembly, and after that - the president of Hungary.
 * The one who signed it so far is Sándor Lezsák who is acting speaker of the assembly.
 * The one who is now acting President of Hungary (and that was the speaker of the assembly until he assumed this position) is László Kövér, and he has not signed it (yet?). BenG 01:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to fix it. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The document sent to the President actually states the incoming President's name.. It is therefore likely that it will not be signed until he assumed office. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * okay, worded it as 'can be signed' by him after taking office, dropped mention of the acting president. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed from the ratification table the line for the singature of the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly, which you had added. Based on the explanation of the legislative process on the Hungarian on the parliament's website, the speaker is required by the constitution to sign laws passed by the parliament. There is no discretion. The president, meanwhile, can sign or veto a law sent to him by the speaker. So, both the parliament and the president have discretion over whether to pass laws, but the speaker does not. His role is purely ministerial. So, it should not qualify for the table, which lists only the major national institutions that have discretion over the advancement of the instrument of ratification.  Ergo Sum  02:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian Ratification is in official Gazette

https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/24a2a48d580ba5e080e1ec3c442bf9f09d3923de/megtekintes

However it should be delivered to Pentagon as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.164.26 (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Are we taking bets on how long this takes? 220.247.205.124 (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I say before the end of March 2601:404:D281:A30:E1B0:52B2:C2FE:9229 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Optimist. Cart (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly tomorrow or Monday is the latest word. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 03:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson is in Washington and White House confirms Sweden to join Nato on Thursday, so stand by...Cart (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Protocol is now entered into force
U.S. Department of State has published a document where it states that the protocol of accession of Sweden has entered into force today. Should we update the table accordingly? --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkish diplomacy
A subsection in this article has the title "Incentives offered to Turkey and resolution". The first line of the section is about the US Congress blocking a sale of fighter jets "because of the Swedish NATO membership issue". Is it neutral to call that an "incentive"? Latter in the text it is mentioned "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that Sweden had agreed to provide Turkey a roadmap to its full implementation of their 2022 agreement". Is it neutral to call compliance to an agreement an "incentive"? Then there is the issue of the Canadian ban on exports of arms to Turkey. It is introduced in the text as a complain by Erdogan and then it mentioned in the last line that Canada lifted the ban. This is the only argument that I can see for using the word "incentive" in the title. It is a very weak argument though because 1) the word is in plural (incentives) 2) the section presents developments in foreign relations of Turkey with US and Sweden too, which are in fact covered the most.

A better, NPOV compliant, title would be "Later developments and resolution". Nxavar (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Coloration of Polls on Swedish membership of NATO Table
I don’t understand the use of light and dark colors (light green vs. dark green, light red vs. dark red) in the table. I think it needs to be made consistent to be based on some explicitly stated criterion.

It doesn’t seem to correspond to the majority/plurality or any particular threshold for the margin. Mpsayler (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't make any sense of the different lights and darks either. I just changed them to just use light red and dark green. Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Clunky opening sentence
It's been edited many times, but it stills reads very poorly. This is how it currently reads: "Sweden is a country in Northern Europe and is a member of the intergovernmental military alliance North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)." It has FOUR links to Wikipedia articles!

I know that we don't have to make every article in Wikipedia identical in structure and syntax, but we can use the lead sentence in Finland–NATO relations as a very simple template. Its opening sentence is currently, "Finland has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 4 April 2023." If readers want to know what NATO is, they just click the link. I think that the opening sentence of this article used to look almost exactly like the Finland page. I propose (1) making the opening sentence its own paragraph and (2) writing it, "Sweden has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 7 March 2024." Of course, we would remove that date from the final sentence of the lead section. As for how the acronym is defined, there's no rule that says that we always must write the acronym first and then provide its expansion in parentheses. Just look at several articles and you'll find different styles that work equally well.

The rest of the opening section could use more work and also has some awkward portions, but the first sentence probably is most in need of improvement right now. Thanks and cheers! Holy (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's been three days with no reply, objection, or discussion, and this is still a fairly active article, so I'm assuming that everyone has had a fair chance to disagree. I'm implementing the proposal. Holy (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This scans much better; thank you!  The Savage  Norwegian  21:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweden's foreign relations with NATO member states
Purposes of flags in this section is unclear: (1) Of course Sweden has diplomatic relations with all NATO countries, why yet another list? (2) The targets of these wikilinks are either article about the country X, article "Foreign relations of country X", or even more strange, Foreign relations of Sweden. What is the purpose of this section with no sources? Викидим (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)