Makes no difference, as the Convention is considered customary international law. Legally, it is also binding on non-signatories. Again, look it up.

From a political angle, Turkey will of course be kept 'shackled' to the West, to keep it from drifting off into China's camp.

>Finland and Sweden should’ve been admitted.

Not only that, but they fully meet and exceed all NATO membership requirements and criteria, while Turkey and Hungary do not.

False. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 60 applies. And because it is considered to be customary international law, it is also binding on non-signatories. The fact that e.g. Turkey has not signed the convention does not matter.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 60. Look it up.

Edit; all the downvoters can find the text here, on page 20. Since the VCLT is considered a codification of customary international law and state practice concerning treaties, it is also legally binding on non-signatories and non-parties.

The F-16s appear to be the most likely "deal" that can be struck, and then sold to the Turkish public.

The US Senate for one appears rather annoyed with "Turkey's continued failure to ratify Sweden and Finland's accession", and will not be greenlighting any arms deals before Turkey has remedied its "failure".

Yes, and the UK for example has already done so. But that kind of arrangement would create a lot of red tape. Sweden and Finland are de facto under NATO protection already, and the main benefit of formal membership comes from NATO's coordination structures (planning, logistics, operations etc.). With 28 separate treaties, things would be far more messy and complex.

Of course, if Turkey doesn't see sense, Sweden (and Finland) will be integrated into the collective defence system. NATO is the preferred option, but alternate solutions exist.

Wholesome Nordics... just makes you feel warm inside, doesn't it?