Continental Europe as well as the British Isles, including the Republic of Ireland, are unfortunately no stranger to the ugly, murderous face of terrorism. Innocent people have lost their lives in heinous atrocities, ranging from the bombing of buses or trains, cafes and restaurants to trying to blow up entire seaside hotels where leading politicians gather. Europe has come to realize that terrorism is not an issue only occurring in far-away distant lands – it can strike at the heart of Europe any minute before and after 9/11.

What is even more incomprehensible is when some European nations treat Turkey's decadeslong fight against PKK terrorism either on its soil or just across its southern borders as "their problem, not ours." Fair enough, some elected officeholders might have concluded "my country is better off in splendid isolation, let's switch off our television sets and forget about the outside world."

Yet what makes matters so much more worrisome is when some of those very same states’ representatives start verbally flirting with or outright financially aiding people or organizations engaging in violence and terrorist activities directed at individual citizens or entire countries.

At stake: the recent bids by Sweden and Finland to join the ranks of NATO in an unprecedented change of political neutrality.

Seeing eye to eye matters

Earlier this week diplomatic delegations from both Sweden and Finland traveled to Turkey to meet with the government. Delegations led by Oscar Stenstrom, the Swedish state secretary for foreign affairs and the official responsible for the Security Policy Council, as well as Finnish State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Jukka Salovaara arrived to meet with Turkey's delegation led by Presidential Spokesperson Ibrahim Kalın to discuss the possibility of a compromise.

On the negotiating table were tricky items, correct, but in an ideal world only tricky for Sweden and Finland yet easily resolved if goodwill becomes the order of the day. Some of those issues are the extradition of known PKK and FETÖ terrorists to Turkey where they will be treated according to the norms and values of a modern state of justice and democracy, just as they would be in Sweden and Finland; treating Turkey as an equal NATO partner and not lecturing Ankara; stop allowing PKK and other PKK-related terrorist associations and individuals to engage in street demonstrations and other forms of trying to shore up public support; and refrain from verbally and financially aiding the PKK directly or via its "rebranded" organizations, the YPG/PYD. As was quoted in a number of media publications and television in Turkey, including Daily Sabah newspaper, Ibrahim Kalin said: "Therefore, the most fundamental issue of this alliance is to meet the security concerns of its members equally and justly. Turkey has made very serious contributions to this alliance. Turkey’s security concerns are related to the presence of terrorist organizations, especially in European countries."

Are these demands extraordinary? Are they wrong? Are they over the top? Three clear "nays." Ankara is asking for fair treatment and an understanding of the threats Turkey has faced over the past four decades that have led to the death of over 40,000 people. What Ankara asks for is that Sweden and Finland finally realize that directly or indirectly talking with and supporting illegal gangs and terrorist groups one day makes their very own territory vulnerable to and for terrorist attacks, too. It is a known fact that if a terrorist gang realizes their old murderous playground is no more, and with all the weapons and money available, they might just as well look for new targets, which would likely be on European soil. One starts to wonder if European intelligence is really that bad?

Sweden’s biggest misperception

Our esteemed readers may recall that it has only been only six months since a detailed analysis was published in which a shocking revelation came to light. Back in the year 2017, it was no one else than highly respected and experienced U.S. Army General Raymond Thomas who declared during an event in Aspen, Colorado, that he himself had told the YPG to "rebrand" itself to camouflage its links with the PKK. Two years before he had told the YPG that Ankara is worried about their near-identical links with the PKK and thus suggested his marketing gimmick. The result: adding the word "democracy" into the mix and voila, the Syrian Democratic Forces, later the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), saw the light of day. Thomas applauded himself in his speech by announcing, "I thought it was a stroke of brilliance to put democracy in there somewhere."

Sweden still claims that meeting with representatives of the SDC is not flirting with a known terrorist gang, despite being well aware of Thomas’s own words. Recent photos of Foreign Minister Ann Linde welcoming an SDC delegation are enough proof of this misperception.

The real question on everyone’s mind is the following: Is it just a simple misperception, again returning to the student days of politics claiming "every revolution anywhere in the world must be supported, fight capitalism," as some student leaders of the 1970s and 1980s would proudly put on their banners, or is there more to it?

Could prosperous, strong NATO member Turkey make some quarters uncomfortable?

Turkey has come a long way since the start of the new millennium. It shed the cocoon of being constantly lectured by so-called allies and friends and turned into a modern democracy with a 360-degree foreign policy. It is sadly understandable that criminal elements prefer an authoritarian Turkey as this gives them verbal ammunition to plant bombs and create anarchy. There were likely extremely dissatisfied with Ankara's path to a full-fledged democracy. What puzzles European observers like me is why European partner nations hesitate to congratulate Turkey for its tremendous political and economical achievements over the past 20 years.

No word, never; only when Ankara is really needed, for example during a migrant situation, will leaders travel from Brussels or Paris to Turkey to ask Ankara for help. It is as if modern Turkey does not exist on the map of democracies.

And when Turkey asks for support in return, in this case for ending terrorism, everyone shows a cold shoulder. "Sorry guys, not our cup of tea."

Now Stockholm and Helsinki repeating this ill-fated approach by simply expecting Ankara to automatically waive its PKK and FETÖ concerns and allow both former nations into NATO is short-sighted at best.

Let us hope that as was written above in this brief analysis that both delegations return safely to their homelands and convince their leaders that Turkey's demands are more than justified. For the time being and seen from Europe (indeed, this is where this contribution was penned) Turkey should uphold its resistance and vetoes.