Live data from Hacker News

Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

svt.se

71–80 of 310 posts

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But turks said no. No. If the Turks actually said "no," they wouldn't be making demands: https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finlan... : > Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Sunday outlined demands for Finland and Sweden which seek membership in NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. > Speaking with Turkish reporters after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, he sai…

From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.

> why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance?

Because Russia is still the scarier enemy. If the rest of NATO approves, what is Turkey going to do? Leave NATO and accept eventual invasion?

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#72
post #45
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republic of India definitely does not have the queen as head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.

India is the most independent amongst the vassals. But it's not a fully independent nation like the US, russia, china or even north korea. No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations Leaders • Head Queen Elizabeth II • Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal • Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson

I'm sorry but this is blatantly false also. The Commonwealth of Nations is a political association as stated in that article you posted but the member nations are not vassals and the queen does not serve as head of state for any of them except the UK

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#73
post #2

But turks said no.

If they had to choose, NATO would probably rather have Sweden and Finland in and Turkey out. Here's an interesting thread on Finland's strategic importance: https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525959053490458624

If NATO is to drop one of its loyal members over such simple request, what would be a reason for anyone to join that "alliance"? They could then as well drop a member that get attacked, instead of invoking Article 5 alliance case.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#74
post #45
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republic of India definitely does not have the queen as head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.

India is the most independent amongst the vassals. But it's not a fully independent nation like the US, russia, china or even north korea. No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations Leaders • Head Queen Elizabeth II • Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal • Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson

From your link:

> Member states have no legal obligations to one another

I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#75

Quoted post unavailable.

Not quite sure of the relevance of this to the linked story, however true it might be.

> In Sweden, non-white people have zero power.

Categorically and unquestionably false. What the parent is saying is that he wants more power than Swedes. (I’m not trolling, please check my Karma)

That he believe's he's being discriminated against tells me everything I need to know about how he aligns himself, because only a few people have this rhetoric, and it's mostly attempting to garner sympathy.

Why would I say that?

I don't want to get into a race-debate, but there's a lot of people who don't seem to like Sweden because it's not anti-semetic enough.

That might sound like an extremely rude statement but it's actually a huge problem at the moment, Muslims in the country seem to be doing anything they can to make themselves sound like victims deflect the fact that anti-semetic violence has been rising incredibly fast in the last 10 years where I live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Sweden#Situati...

Why am I saying this?

Because non-white people have as much power as white people in Sweden, there's non-white politicians at all levels of government (and not "Uncle Toms" that speak the party line). Here's the minister for Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Baylan (not that I'm saying it proves anything, but there's no barriers there)

The only reason to lie about it is because you want sympathy, there's so many checks and balances built into the system to avoid racism. I'll be completely honest and say that you're more likely to get a job as a Syrian than a Dane. (nobody can understand the bloody Danes)

The issue is that Sweden has a strong culture of "lagom", the idea that your actions shouldn't stick out so much. Don't buy the flash car, don't yell in public, wear modest clothes.

Muslims who keep placing stickers telling Jews they're unwelcome leads Swedes to dislike the Muslims that live here.

FWIW: I am not a Jew, and I'm a migrant to Sweden, but I've naturalised here and the rhetoric is the same as where I come from. The police are racist for investigating grooming gangs, so nobody investigates grooming gangs until it becomes a huge scandal. My childhood friend went missing (suspected murdered) after being targeted by one of these gangs, the fact that it hadn’t been investigated properly fuelled the far right in the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Charlene_Down...

It's not that you're brown my dude, it's because you're affiliating yourself with people who are trying their damndest to be loud.

Nobody gives a fuck if you're brown. Seriously. I can't think of a more open place.

and, conversely, I don't give a fuck if you're Muslim, but I draw the line at making other people feel unwelcome.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#76
post #2

But turks said no.

> But turks said

I very much doubt that these announcements are the _start_ of negotiations.

More likely, the public phase makes the beginning of the end of negotiations for Sweden (and Finland) to join NATO. It would be a co-ordinated, done deal or close to it, before they break cover and announce it to the world, and to Russia specifically.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#78
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.

> why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? Because Russia is still the scarier enemy. If the rest of NATO approves, what is Turkey going to do? Leave NATO and accept eventual invasion?

If I recall correctly, it requires unanimous vote of approval.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#79
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it's not just about military size, it's about cooperation. There's no point in having a military that's 30x the size of another one if they don't really cooperate with you. > calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain In this case it's because it's just wrong. Sweden is by and large a peaceful, democratic, liberal democracy that has free markets and cooperates with NATO member states on a variety…

> there's absolutely no reason for Turkey to object over Sweden joining NATO in the first place This is disingenuous. The YPG question is not "no reason" for Turkey. (I disagree about the reason, but it is still an actual concern for the Turkish government). > if they don't really cooperate with you. Turkey absolutely cooperated extensively with the US & NATO. Militarily, much more so than Sweden does.

> This is disingenuous. The YPG question is not "no reason" for Turkey. (I disagree about the reason, but it is still an actual concern for the Turkish government).

I don't view that as a valid reason to object to Sweden joining NATO. Maybe Turkey does, and maybe they won't be in NATO over it by the end of the year? There's 0 chance that Sweden and Finland don't join NATO, regardless of what Turkey publically claims.

> Turkey absolutely cooperated extensively with the US & NATO. Militarily, much more so than Sweden does.

Sure, and that cooperation is expected to continue. Ongoing partnerships have to like, keep going on right? Voting "no" to block Sweden and/or Finland from joining NATO would stop the ongoing partnership and end many elements of cooperation. Frankly, while Turkey is helpful militarily and strategically, the US can do anything in the world it needs to do with or without Turkey. But the one thing the US (and NATO) can't afford is serious dissension in the ranks, and that won't be tolerated regardless of the cost.

It's similar to me with the Taiwan thing. For some crazy reason people think that the US wouldn't go to war with China to defend Taiwan. For a while, people such as myself even were concerned about the Baltic states - then the US and UK moved thousands of troops there. These alliances and commitments are a big deal, especially when genuine strategic interests are at stake amongst nation states.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#80
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.

> why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? Because Russia is still the scarier enemy. If the rest of NATO approves, what is Turkey going to do? Leave NATO and accept eventual invasion?

As far as I know, it has to be approved unanimously, so Turkey can say "NO" and nothing will happen. The point is that ... today Turkey makes demands, sure, but tomorrow it's someone else, or event today itself, except that Turkey is more "dramatic" about it. Who knows what Finland and Sweden actually have to "give" in order to join NATO. That's life, and that's also okay.

Which is BTW similar to what's happening to EU: they realized that some states have too much power in the admission process, so they want to "speed up" the process. Probably they will go for a "3/4" of the members have to say YES. That kind of stuff. Same old, same old.

Post reply on HN