That said: I'm not sure there's much point in debating what Erdogan might do if he loses.
I think there was some news that Ünal Çeviköz, Kilicdaroglu's (opposition leader) foreign policy advisor, has sent signals that were optimistic. Additionally, it may be easier for US and EU to put pressure on the new government for approval.
It could be done in the same way that Taiwan, Japan, and SK have clandestine nuclear programs, but the easier thing to do might be to just deport people who fundraise for the PKK (who are pretty fucking terrible tbh - there's a reason they're still banned in most western countries).
It would also be a massive feather in the CHP's hat, neutralize a major reason why Turkey began buying weapons from Russia, and neutralize a major reason people have supported the AKP.
This whole PKK shitshow is Obama+Trump's fault btw - they both wanted a quick win against IS in Syria while also not using American troops. The only solution was the PKK's Syrian branch - the YPG. There was a whole US lead rebranding of the YPG in the 2014-2018 period specifically for this reason [0][1]
> Thomas said he made the Turkish concerns known to the YPG back in 2015.
“We literally played back to them: ‘You have got to change your brand. What do you want to call yourselves besides the YPG?’ With about a day’s notice they declared that they are the Syrian Democratic Forces.”
“I thought it was a stroke of brilliance to put democracy in there somewhere. But it gave them a little bit of credibility.” [0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-ypg/u-...
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/10/09/t...
Turkey has been trying to get into the EU for decades. I've seen nothing that suggests that's because they want to move closer to European social, political and commercial customs. After all, they could do that without the EU, if that was what they wanted.
So I conclude that they just want budget handouts.
And I also conclude that their opposition to Sweden joining NATO is because it would humiliate Turkey if Sweden joins, while Turkey is still standing outside the EU, hoping.
FWIW, I don't think Turkey should be in NATO; and I don't think they should be in the EU. Not until they have some kind of reasonable governance.
Said by somebody who clearly does not understand the difference between the NATO and the EU, or the importance of Turkey in Europe.
Turkey is extremely important to NATO because a.) they control the Bosphorus b.) they have the largest armed forces in the NATO after the US, c.) their armed forces are technologically comparable to or better than most European armed forces, d.) they have historically been adversaries with Russia, and e.) from what we've seen in Ukraine, top-level politics aside, Turkey is a much more reliable material partner in the event of a war.
I'm sure the USA has very strong reasons to continue hosting its ICBMs in Turkey, even with all the issues that Turkey faces internally.
What a lot of commenters don't get is that if Turkey were admitted into the EU, it would upset the current balance between France and Germany. Turkey could easily become too much of a bigger power player within the EU if they were admitted.
...because it's in a unique location that's been a keystone of military strategy for multiple countries for thousands of years. It contains (not just controls) access between the Med and the Black Sea. It's at the boundary between the steppes, the Middle East and Western Europe.
I don't agree with the "realpolitik" notion that you have to get into bed with countries that don't share your interests, just because there is a strategic advantage to be had.
> I'm sure the USA has very strong reasons to continue hosting its ICBMs in Turkey
I'm sure they do as well. I doubt there's any need to site "Inter Continental" ballistic missiles in Turkey, though; they're pointed at Russia, of course, which is just across the border, not a continent away. Anyway, I'm opposed to nuclear willy-waving in general.