So...NATO is expanding...

[Marduk]

Hmm, this is a semi decent reason. But do you really need islands to control the baltic? Can't we put up SAM batteries, and sensors on the coast of Poland which will be in the baltic?

That's sufficient for not letting Russian ships and aircraft pass.
Of course NATO can do that already.
NATO can do that with its fleets alone, Russian Baltic Fleet is not nearly strong enough to defeat them.
The issue is what if Russians land theirs on Gotland. Its called area denial...
Mostly for the purpose of stopping reinforcements going to Baltics.

I've been generally opposed to letting Sweden in for two reasons The first is that the Swedes are liberal, they are ridiculously SJW I feel letting them in is more dangerous than allowing Islamic theocracies like Iran in. The second issue is that I feel many liberal westerners are being racist by showing favoritism towards northern europeans. They want to protect Sweden even though it's not in NATO far more than they would want to protect actual NATO members in eastern Europe, like Poland, or in Southern Europe like Greece. So I feel a kind of fuck you attitude towards those assholes.

a) Most of Europe is in EU too, and so is Sweden.
b) The whole thing is more about protecting Baltics than Sweden itself as i've explained, its not like Russia has the naval capacity to go D-Day on Sweden, and by land they would have to go through Finland first.

 

[King Arts]

Uh if Article 5 is called we protect who ever called it equally

No I get that if a NATO power is attacked all of NATO will come to it's defense. I was saying let's pretend if both Poland and Sweden were not in NATO. Many of these people would be much more angry if Sweden was attacked than if Poland was attacked. And would be more likely to help out Sweden than they would Poland, Hungary, Romania, or any other eastern European.

 

[Zachowon]

No I get that if a NATO power is attacked all of NATO will come to it's defense. I was saying let's pretend if both Poland and Sweden were not in NATO. Many of these people would be much more angry if Sweden was attacked than if Poland was attacked. And would be more likely to help out Sweden than they would Poland, Hungary, Romania, or any other eastern European.

Not really.
The Swedes would have support from the Nordic countries anyway.
Poland would have US

 

[Skallagrim]

Not really, its downright reasonable compared to their shenanigans with Greece or migrants really. He could be asking for heaps of money, F-35's and EU membership, yet he only asks f or actually relevant things.

Is your argument really "he's also done way worse, and he could quite plausibly do way worse stuff now"? Because that only underpins my thesis that Turkey -- at least under that Erdogan and his thuggish cronies -- is not an ally and therefore shouldn't be treated as an ally.

What country would have a different attitude if it was in their place?

A true ally, bound to you in a pact of mutual support. That's the kind of country that would have a different attitude.

Turkey acts in a purely mercenary way, which is their right in the dog-eat-dog world of geopolitics. Sure. But that's how you act to the out-group. You must stand united with your allies; that's the point of an alliance. If you try to manipulate and bully the alliance you're in even as it is threatened by a foreign power that you still want to friends with, too...

...then you are not an ally. Not a friend. Nor reliable.

Turkey should be cast out, and treated as what it is: an enemy.

If there was a major militant separatist movement in USA that was trying to secede few states worth of territory into an independent probably communist country, and if Mexico or Canada was sheltering this movement's VIPs while giving them freedom to fundraise and recruit on their territory, what kind of attitude would USA be giving to this country? Would it allow that country in NATO?

The USA is not the murderous dictatorship that Turkey is. In America, I see no groups that are oppressed as the Kurds are oppressed.

Curious what country are you from?

I am from the Netherlands; hardly "better" than Sweden. Which means that if I were judged by the perceived failures of my countrymen, you'd let me die, too.

Why do you see Sweden as a worthy ally to let in? NATO exists for the benefit of the nations within it right now not to help other nations by bringing them in. Bringing in other nations is fine if we like them politically and they can contribute and are worth it. Why is it worth it for NAT soldiers to die for Sweden, or Ukraine? That’s what an alliance means if they are attacked you put your life at risk. If Sweden was invaded in could support giving them weapons like we do to Ukraine to bleed the aggressor, but why do more?

The West is, and always has been, threatened from the East. This is an existential reality. Russia is set to violently disintegrate (a process only hastened by recent events). In the face of the very real prospect of a new Russian civil war and/or nuclear-armed warlordism, I think it wise for the West to be united in its common defence.

This is most effectively done by securing a clear and defensible border. Ideally, NATO should include Finland, first and foremost, but Sweden is a nice bonus in that regard. The Baltic Sea must be under Western control, and must be denied to a hostile force.


...You have, however, apparently missed my main point. This is not so much that Sweden or Finland are so great, but rather that Turkey is a viper, and that clutching it to our chest is a deadly choice. It isn't Russia that is going to be the great military threat of the next few decades. Russia is heading towards violent collapse, which will be messy and may cause spill-over... but in the rulting power-vacuüm, Turkey is set to be the real threat. And they can build up towards their ambitions without fearing any consequence, because we foolishly treat them as if they were friends.

 

[Marduk]

Is your argument really "he's also done way worse, and he could quite plausibly do way worse stuff now"? Because that only underpins my thesis that Turkey -- at least under that Erdogan and his thuggish cronies -- is not an ally and therefore shouldn't be treated as an ally.

Nations do not have friends, nations have interests.
Like it or not, Turkey is closer to ME than Europe, and politics are a lot less nice there, that's how they do things. Hate it, love it, but either way, adapt to it.
Turkey is not in NATO for their pleasant company, Turkey is in NATO mostly because it has a big army, Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

A true ally, bound to you in a pact of mutual support. That's the kind of country that would have a different attitude.

This is international politics, not marriage.
That kind of sentiment can be easily turned around into an argument that if Sweden is not willing to be an enemy of Turkey's enemies, it doesn't belong in NATO.

Turkey acts in a purely mercenary way, which is their right in the dog-eat-dog world of geopolitics. Sure. But that's how you act to the out-group. You must stand united with your allies; that's the point of an alliance. If you try to manipulate and bully the alliance you're in even as it is threatened by a foreign power that you still want to friends with, too...

...then you are not an ally. Not a friend. Nor reliable.

So what do you think of the shit France pulled regarding NATO over the years?
No alliance is unconditional and unlimited, and especially not a strictly defined, defensive alliance like NATO.
And speaking of out-group, Sweden is not in NATO *yet*, that's what the whole thing is about. As far as NATO is concerned, it still is the out-group.

Turkey should be cast out, and treated as what it is: an enemy.



The USA is not the murderous dictatorship that Turkey is. In America, I see no groups that are oppressed as the Kurds are oppressed.

I could find you several groups who think they are. Who is to be the ultimate judge of that?
As i said, oppressed or not, EU and USA officially agree that Turkey does have a point with the whole PKK issue.

 

[WolfBear]

I could find you several groups who think they are. Who is to be the ultimate judge of that?
As i said, oppressed or not, EU and USA officially agree that Turkey does have a point with the whole PKK issue.

Solution: Make Sweden Yes! the new Kurdish homeland. There--problem solved! All Turkish Kurds can simply move to Sweden instead!

 

[Skallagrim]

Like it or not, Turkey is closer to ME than Europe, and politics are a lot less nice there, that's how they do things. Hate it, love it, but either way, adapt to it.
Turkey is not in NATO for their pleasant company, Turkey is in NATO mostly because it has a big army, Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

"They are not like us and they are a threat, that's why they, uh... should be in our club! Yeah!"

Total insanity.

I am truly astonished that you are so eager to bend over for the Turks. What sense is there in that? If "nations have no friends" and the Turks are a threat, that's a motive to crush them, not to cozy up to them.

Solution: Make Sweden Yes! the new Kurdish homeland. There--problem solved! All Turkish Kurds can simply move to Sweden instead!

I frankly prefer the solution where Central Asia is the Turkish homeland, and Greece borders Georgia, Armenia and Kurdistan.

 

[Marduk]

"They are not like us and they are a threat, that's why they, uh... should be in our club! Yeah!"

Total insanity.

They can be a threat if they are not on our side, but we can offer them a deal to keep them there, which we know because we did that and it kinda works.

I am truly astonished that you are so eager to bend over for the Turks. What sense is there in that? If "nations have no friends" and the Turks are a threat, that's a motive to crush them, not to cozy up to them.

Do we have the will and the means to crush them? At minimum kick them out of the European side of the straits and do *something* about the probably rather unhappy population on the kept side?
Guess in the most likely scenario that we don't (iffy on the means, hell no on the will) become an evolution of EU from some strategy game like EndWar or OGRE, we have to think of another solution. Like the current one, which is working well enough so far.

"Bending over for Turks" would imply something like giving them another few dozen billions of euros, or letting them into EU for it. A bunch of far away foreign separatists with disturbingly far left leanings are not something that should be a red line, sheltering them certainly doesn't help NATO security more than Turkey.

 

[Skallagrim]

They can be a threat if they are not on our side, but we can offer them a deal to keep them there, which we know because we did that and it kinda works.

Do we have the will and the means to crush them? At minimum kick them out of the European side of the straits and do *something* about the probably rather unhappy population on the kept side?
Guess in the most likely scenario that we don't (iffy on the means, hell no on the will) become an evolution of EU from some strategy game like EndWar or OGRE, we have to think of another solution. Like the current one, which is working well enough so far.

"Bending over for Turks" would imply something like giving them another few dozen billions of euros, or letting them into EU for it. A bunch of far away foreign separatists with disturbingly far left leanings are not something that should be a red line, sheltering them certainly doesn't help NATO security more than Turkey.

Thanks for the elaboration, mr Chamberlain.

I'm sure that your careful policy towards Herr Erdogan has indeed secured peace in our time!


Meanwhile, in the real world, bending to the whims of thugs only makes them ever bolder. Surely you must know that, since you talk of nations having no friends, indicating a preference for such views of geo-politics. Given that understanding and that view, I don't doubt that you can grasp the inescapable conclusion: with thugs like Erdogan, either your boot is on their throat, or their boot is on your throat.

I know which situation I prefer, but your stance on the matter would steer us ever closer to the other outcome.

So if the will to crush the Turks is lacking -- better find it! That seems to be a task on your end, since you seem to examplify that... hesitant attitude. We must rid ourselves of that, and then rid ourselves of Turkey.

 

[King Arts]

The USA is not the murderous dictatorship that Turkey is. In America, I see no groups that are oppressed as the Kurds are oppressed.

So a liberal "Muh democracy" argument? Why should we care what form of government a nation takes, monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, Republic, Theocracy. As long as they aren't unreasonable and don't seek to export it then it's fine.

I am from the Netherlands; hardly "better" than Sweden. Which means that if I were judged by the perceived failures of my countrymen, you'd let me die, too.

Ahh I see, you feel kinship with the Nordic people since they are ethnically and culturally similar. And why are you complaining about being judged for your countrymen's actions when you have a collectivist outlook on reality and believe in a west vs east mentality? Though lucky for you I actually do believe in NATO and believe that any attack on a member should be defended against. I'm just against expanding NATO any further unless there is a VERY VERY good reason. The borders are fine as they are.

The West is, and always has been, threatened from the East. This is an existential reality. Russia is set to violently disintegrate (a process only hastened by recent events). In the face of the very real prospect of a new Russian civil war and/or nuclear-armed warlordism, I think it wise for the West to be united in its common defence.

This is most effectively done by securing a clear and defensible border. Ideally, NATO should include Finland, first and foremost, but Sweden is a nice bonus in that regard. The Baltic Sea must be under Western control, and must be denied to a hostile force.


...You have, however, apparently missed my main point. This is not so much that Sweden or Finland are so great, but rather that Turkey is a viper, and that clutching it to our chest is a deadly choice. It isn't Russia that is going to be the great military threat of the next few decades. Russia is heading towards violent collapse, which will be messy and may cause spill-over... but in the rulting power-vacuüm, Turkey is set to be the real threat. And they can build up towards their ambitions without fearing any consequence, because we foolishly treat them as if they were friends.

What is the "West" You do realize that the historical nations that make up the west are highly diverse and different from each other and have fought against each other. The same applies to the various Eastern nations. As for Turkey becoming a great power? Doubtful only if interventionists win. Turkey can't expand into Europe that is unacceptable and Europe will band together to push them out. That leaves the only way to expand is into the middle east. Now while Arabs are incompetent and in a vacuum COULD be defeated by Turkey, luckily there would be some competion. The Iranians would stop the Turks from bringing back the Ottoman Empire, because they want to bring back the Persian Empire. Unless Neo cons destroy one of these to let the other exploit a power vacuum. Then we can rely on them to just check each other. The joys of non intervention.

 

[WolfBear]

I frankly prefer the solution where Central Asia is the Turkish homeland, and Greece borders Georgia, Armenia and Kurdistan.

But Turks won't get anywhere near as huge welfare gibs in Central Asia as they would in Sweden!

 

[bintananth]

Basque separatists

The Basques are an indigenous people with a native language that's completely unrelated to every other known language.

Not "Every other Indo-European language". It's "Every other language, period." Linguists have tried, and failed, to find one known language related to Basque.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Yet more proof that, contrary to what some people here think, Turkey is a hostile power that should not be in NATO.

The talk about "B-but then they'll ally with our enemies!" is pure stupidity. They are already in league with our enemies. They are an enemy. And enemies should be outside the gates, not inside.

I'm pretty unhappy with Turkey's shenanigans, but seemingly not to the degree you are. And, hate it though we may, there is something to be said for "politics makes strange bedfellows". The ridiculous ideas about teaming up with Russia against China were ridiculous chiefly because Russia could not be trusted to pick the right side no matter what carrots were offered.

If kicking Turkey out of NATO is possible, I'd rather it be for five minutes. After Finland and Sweden are in, we can offer to let Turkey rejoin—without extra strings attached, just to demonstrate that we're better than them.

 

[Marduk]

Thanks for the elaboration, mr Chamberlain.

I'm sure that your careful policy towards Herr Erdogan has indeed secured peace in our time!


Meanwhile, in the real world, bending to the whims of thugs only makes them ever bolder. Surely you must know that, since you talk of nations having no friends, indicating a preference for such views of geo-politics. Given that understanding and that view, I don't doubt that you can grasp the inescapable conclusion: with thugs like Erdogan, either your boot is on their throat, or their boot is on your throat.

I know which situation I prefer, but your stance on the matter would steer us ever closer to the other outcome.

So if the will to crush the Turks is lacking -- better find it! That seems to be a task on your end, since you seem to examplify that... hesitant attitude. We must rid ourselves of that, and then rid ourselves of Turkey.

Go enjoy your fantasy world of pie in the sky then. Why not go straight to crushing Russia first (its an actual threat), then Turkey with its control of Black Sea becomes irrelevant, so you can escalate whatever spats with it you want.

 

[Skallagrim]

Go enjoy your fantasy world of pie in the sky then. Why no go straight to crushing Russia first (its an actual threat), then Turkey with its control of Black Sea becomes irrelevant, so you can have whatever spats with it you want.

It is evident that your view is the idealistic fantasy one -- a view that we'll yet come to bitterly regret ever entertaining. Please do not project that onto me; you're the one who thinks letting enemies inside the gate is a good idea, and that gives you no basis for accusing others of a lack of realism.

As far as crushing Russia is concerned: I already mentioned (and have in the past explained, in fact in conversation with you) my view that Russia is set to self-immolate. Recent events seem to validate my position, and there is more reason than ever to believe that Russia is a has-been headed for collapse and violent anarchy. As such, we do not need to destroy it. Russia is destroying itself.

 

[Marduk]

It is evident that your view is the idealistic fantasy one -- a view that we'll yet come to bitterly regret ever entertaining. Please do not project that onto me; you're the one who thinks letting enemies inside the gate is a good idea, and that gives you no basis for accusing others of a lack of realism.

I'm not the one asking for the impossible.

As far as crushing Russia is concerned: I already mentioned (and have in the past explained, in fact in conversation with you) my view that Russia is set to self-immolate. Recent events seem to validate my position, and there is more reason than ever to believe that Russia is a has-been headed for collapse and violent anarchy. As such, we do not need to destroy it. Russia is destroying itself.

Yeah, sure, more faith based geopolitics. I'm sure your belief in that is strong, so strong you would even throw away NATO strategic advantages over Russia for the sake of minor spats with Turkey, but you need to understand other people don't share your strong belief and would need to see the hurraoptimistic result first before reorienting their whole geopolitical outlook on the basis of it.

 

[Skallagrim]

I'm not the one asking for the impossible.

You're defending the suicidal, and dismissing the indispensable as "impossible". Again: thanks for your insight, mr. Chamberlain. Another cup of concentrated appeasement juice for you, then?

Yeah, sure, more faith based geopolitics.

Look at Russia right now. My view is based on visible evidence. This great Bear cannot even take Kiev. I thought they were set to collapse before this all went down, and I esteemed their military abilities far higher than they turned out to be. Recent events only prove that Russia is doomed.

I'm sure your belief in that is strong, so strong you would even throw away NATO strategic advantages over Russia for the sake of minor spats with Turkey

Turkey is sabotaging NATO's interests (specifically of improving common defence against problems deriving from Russia), while also still being in bed with Russia. And you're defending them. In short: you're the one willing to throw away NATO's strategic advantages -- to appease Turkey.

Stop trying to turn it around on others. You're the one whose attitudes weaken us.

but you need to understand other people don't share your strong belief and would need to see the hurraoptimistic result first before reorienting their whole geopolitical outlook on the basis of it.

"You need to uderstand others just don't share your belief that Hitler is dangerous, nor that we can easily defeat him. We'd need to see proof of the ability to do this before we try doing it!"

And then, some time later: "Oh, if only we'd acted while we still had the chance!"

Act now. Don't delay, don't listen to the coward's impulses of the appeaser. Let Russia immolate itself, and destroy the Turk while we can still do it with relative ease. If we wait, we'll only regret it.

 

[Marduk]

You're defending the suicidal, and dismissing the indispensable as "impossible". Again: thanks for your insight, mr. Chamberlain. Another cup of concentrated appeasement juice for you, then?

Did Erdogan shoot your dog?
I'm dismissing the fucking unrealistic as impossible, argue otherwise if you want, stupid quips only show that you have no solution to this problem, only pie in the sky.

Look at Russia right now. My view is based on visible evidence. This great Bear cannot even take Kiev. I thought they were set to collapse before this all went down, and I esteemed their military abilities far higher than they turned out to be. Recent events only prove that Russia is doomed.

If disappointingly ineffective military invasions inevitably caused countries to collapse, there would have been far more collapsed countries in the Middle East during the Cold War. If even notoriously unstable Arab dictatorships can survive such humiliating defeats, against tiny Israel nonetheless, chances look good for Russia.

Turkey is sabotaging NATO's interests (specifically of improving common defence against problems deriving from Russia), while also still being in bed with Russia. And you're defending them. In short: you're the one willing to throw away NATO's strategic advantages -- to appease Turkey.

Again, you are spinning facts instead looking coldly at the situation.
Turkey is sabotaging NATO interests in one area, but on the other hand by definition support of Kurdish separatism is also against NATO interests, and Turkey making Sweden joining conditional upon not doing that is supporting NATO interests elsewhere.
The fact is that Russia has supplied Kurd militants with weapons since the Cold War and continues to do so.

Russia supplied weapons to Iraqi Kurds: RIA

Russia has supplied weapons to Iraqi Kurds, the first shipment arrived on March 14, RIA news agency quoted the Russian consulate in Iraq as saying on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

https://www.rudaw.net/turkish/kurdistan/010320223

Russia Wields the Kurdish Weapon

An incoherent American strategy is allowing Putin’s Russia to drive wedges into American alliances and disrupt what little strategy the U.S. has left in Syria. The latest example: Russia’s clever move to back the Syrian Kurds—key allies in what passes for America’s anti-ISIS strategy—against the...

www.hudson.org

So long story short its a complicated situation, Turkey is not holding NATO interests hostage merely for some stupid fancy of its own, its holding NATO interests hostage over... other NATO interests that are closer to home.
On the other hand, simping for Kurds and their militant organizations is kinda inexcusable from the perspective of NATO interests, as they are more of a frenemy than Turkey itself is.
Russia is not supporting them for the hell of it.
Sweden continuing to do so, even if by less direct means, while being in NATO would be improper, not a strategic advantage.
You can be mad that Turkey is aggressively lobbing for the alliance to take Turkey's security interests in mind, but its not unreasonable for Turkey to demand a military alliance protects its security interests as a member.

Stop trying to turn it around on others. You're the one whose attitudes weaken us.

If you have a way to make the western politicians and public adopt an attitude of "crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women", i'm listening. Otherwise i will dismiss you as a pie in the sky enjoyer.

"You need to uderstand others just don't share your belief that Hitler is dangerous, nor that we can easily defeat him. We'd need to see proof of the ability to do this before we try doing it!"

Dangerous to who? If he decides to direct his empire building efforts towards Syria or Iran, even better, he does America's dirty work for it. Being in NATO, that's another reason for him not to direct his aggression northwest.

 

[Skallagrim]

snip

I'm just going to snip your post now, because you fankly don't raise any arguments. You just keep turning all logic on its head, consistently shifting the burden of proof, and trying to make it so that even though Turkey actively sabotages NATO's plans, we have to justify our behaviour to Turkey.

Your whole line of reasoning boils down to "We should have Turkey in NATO because they're an ally, and the fact that they're in NATO proves they're an ally". Which is obviously circular reasoning, based on the assumption that Turkey is acting and will continue to act in good faith. We have evidence that this is not the case. Turkey first said they'd have no objection to Sweden and Finland in NATO. Then, after the announcement, they suddenly objected anyway. Because then they'd have more bargaining power. In doing so, they very publicly undermined NATO's interests -- and betrayed their word.

If they had objections, they could have voiced them when asked. They didn't. They stabbed their "allies" in the back. It shows what they are, and it's not an ally.

You try to twist this around, but that doesn't hold up. Turkey is at fault here, and demonstrably cannot be trusted. Your premise - "trust Turkey, guys!" -- simply cannot withstand scrutiny.

Your attempt to dismiss my views as unrealistic is yet more circular reasoning. "We can't fight Turkey because we don't want to, and we won't because we can't!"

Not even worth responding to. It's too silly.

 

[Marduk]

I'm just going to snip your post now, because you fankly don't raise any arguments.

Then learn to fucking read.

You just keep turning all logic on its head, consistently shifting the burden of proof, and trying to make it so that even though Turkey actively sabotages NATO's plans, we have to justify our behaviour to Turkey.

Turkey is a full member of NATO, not a vassal of NATO. Worse yet, on practical level it is a pretty influential and important member, more so than Sweden will ever be.
I remind you that the controversy is about Sweden applying to join NATO, not Turkey applying to join NATO, and naturally interests of existing members > prospective ones.

Your whole line of reasoning boils down to "We should have Turkey in NATO because they're an ally, and the fact that they're in NATO proves they're an ally".

They are useful, that's the argument. No one cares about your touchy feely ideas of alliance that border on the definitions of true love.

Turkey Closes Bosphorus, Dardanelles Straits to Warships - USNI News

Turkey has closed off the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to warships from any country, whether or not they border the Black Sea, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The strait closures will still allow warships through if they are returning to a home base in the Black Sea, according to...

news.usni.org

Which is obviously circular reasoning, based on the assumption that Turkey is acting and will continue to act in good faith.

Who gives a shit about what faith they act on. What they do is what matters, its horse trading all the way.

We have evidence that this is not the case. Turkey first said they'd have no objection to Sweden and Finland in NATO. Then, after the announcement, they suddenly objected anyway. Because then they'd have more bargaining power. In doing so, they very publicly undermined NATO's interests -- and betrayed their word.

So what did actually get done? Because all we have here is basic diplomatic drama about who said what. Yes, they did maneuver to increase their bargaining power, so what?
Not the first time NATO countries do shit like this, its a defensive alliance, not a marriage.
France is still in despite all the grumbling they do, including leaving in the middle of Cold War.

If they had objections, they could have voiced them when asked. They didn't. They stabbed their "allies" in the back. It shows what they are, and it's not an ally.

To who? Last time i checked Sweden is still not in NATO. Their open and offical position is that Sweden is not and cannot be their ally until it makes the anti-Kurd commitments they want to prove otherwise.

You try to twist this around, but that doesn't hold up. Turkey is at fault here, and demonstrably cannot be trusted. Your premise - "trust Turkey, guys!" -- simply cannot withstand scrutiny.

Of course they can't be trusted. Neither can Germans, French or Italians. Its almost as if you have discovered NATO internal politics for the first time.

Your attempt to dismiss my views as unrealistic is yet more circular reasoning. "We can't fight Turkey because we don't want to, and we won't because we can't!"

Not even worth responding to. It's too silly.

We neither can nor want to, that's not circular reasoning, that's separate facts, and even solving one of the issues in some unexpected way doesn't clear the roadblock.