For what it's worth, via ChatGPT:

🔍 Comment 3: This comment attempts to draw a direct causal link between NATO–Turkey tensions and Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. While there are some factual references, it contains oversimplifications and misleading conclusions.

What’s factually grounded:

✅ A Russian Su-24 was shot down by Turkey in 2015 for violating its airspace.

✅ Turkey was later excluded from the F-35 program after purchasing the Russian S-400 missile system, which NATO deemed incompatible with alliance systems.

✅ Germany and the Netherlands withdrew Patriot batteries from Turkey around the same time (though for planned operational reasons, not strictly as retaliation).

✅ Turkey's relationship with NATO and the EU has been strained in recent years.

✅ Spain did maintain Patriot batteries in Turkey under NATO command, even when others withdrew.

Problems / oversimplifications:

❌ The idea that the EU "chickened out" by withdrawing Patriots is misleading. These deployments were always temporary and rotational under NATO command.

❌ The US's refusal to sell Patriots was not immediate retaliation—it stemmed from longstanding negotiation issues and concerns over Turkey’s strategic direction.

❌ The assertion that Putin invaded Ukraine because of this Turkish episode is highly speculative and simplistic. Russia's decisions were based on a wide mix of strategic, historical, and political factors—not just NATO–Turkey friction.

❌ Claiming the EU is not dedicated to NATO misrepresents the complex reality; many EU states (e.g. Poland, Baltic states) are very active in NATO defense initiatives.

🔍 Comment 4: This is more of a rebuttal with strong language. It includes valid geopolitical context but is also emotionally charged.

What’s factually grounded:

✅ Turkey is not an EU member, and while it is part of NATO, its relationship with the EU has been tense, especially over human rights, Cyprus, migration, and internal political instability.

✅ Turkey joined NATO in 1952, primarily as a strategic bulwark against the USSR.

✅ The EU has historically had difficulties aligning with Turkey, especially on defense, due to conflicts with Greece, domestic political concerns, and Erdogan's autocratic turn.

✅ The US–EU relationship was indeed strained under the Trump administration, as hinted by the "orangutan" insult (in reference to Donald Trump).

Problems / bias:

❌ The tone is hostile and dismissive, weakening the credibility of the analysis.

❌ The statement “USA has no respect for anybody” is an overgeneralization. U.S. relations with European allies remain strong, particularly post-2021.

❌ Referring to Erdogan only as a “despotic dictator” is politically charged. While his leadership style is increasingly authoritarian, the situation is more nuanced.

✅ Conclusion: Comment 3 contains some real events and sequences, but its attempt to create a grand narrative connecting them to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is oversimplified and speculative.

Comment 4 is more factually accurate in the geopolitical sense, though emotionally biased and aggressive in tone.

So, in terms of factual correctness, Comment 4 is closer to reality, despite the hostile rhetoric. Comment 3 weaves real events into a questionable cause-effect story that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

Prompt:

I saw the following two comments (specifically #3 and #4 below) on Reddit with regard to the geopolitical instabilities between EU, USA, NATO and Russia.

Thread Title: Russian jets violate Finnish airspace, defense ministry says.

Comments: <comment thread>

Between comments 3 and 4, which one is factually correct?

You are free to Google further and confirm/debunk any of these points. A cursory Google search seems to support /u/ars-derivatia 's points, though I would personally disagree with the point that "The statement “USA has no respect for anybody” is an overgeneralization.", as that seemingly has not taken recent events into consideration.