Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

svt.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 310 posts

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#241

Post by dang »

aaomidi wrote: post #238
dang wrote: post #234

We have profound respect for other languages, but HN is an English-language site and articles here need to be in English. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

With various translation tools getting more and more powerful, is it potentially time to reconsider this policy? Something along the lines of please do English articles unless you absolutely can't?

Maybe, but I don't think so. The non-English articles that get submitted are usually current-affairs pieces. If we were seeing a lot of obscure, intellectually interesting content that really hit the HN sweet spot, that would be a stronger case—certainly such content exists in many languages. But it's not what people pick to post here.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#242

Post by koonsolo »

Gravityloss wrote: post #179
jmyeet wrote: post #150

So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months: 1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine; 2. Failed to capture Kyiv; 3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass; 4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership; 5. Suffered huge casulaties; 6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project); 7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the…

Putin has been writing and speaking about this for years. He really thinks Russia should control other Slavic people, and former territories of Russia and Soviet Union etc. And it's not only Putin. Most of the other high ranking officials must have been supporting the attack into Ukraine, otherwise it would not have happened. If it was him alone against everyone else, Putin would simply have been replaced. A large po…

A few days ago I saw a video where a Fin explained that in the last 1000 years, Russia tried to invade Finland 20 times (I didn't verify this data). He claimed that about every 2 to 3 generations, this happens.

This was a real eye-opener for me, and reminds me of a (probably Dutch) expression: A fox loses its hair but not its tricks.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#243

Post by matheusmoreira »

ddalex wrote: post #235
matheusmoreira wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? All that is nothing compared to the literal destruction of this planet. Better to let them walk all over you than risk destroying the world everybody lives in. I seriously doubt there is a single person in america willing to accept even the possibility of being utterly annihilated by nuclear fire over some foreign european nation. War against Vietnam or Iraq is one thing, war against Russia is on a completel…

> Better to let them walk all over you than risk destroying the world everybody lives in It's very easy to ask others to be meek, why don't you offer yourself to Russians to walk them over you? I mean, Russia would be very happy to have Alaska, perhaps you should offer it to them so they don't destroy the world. > ... doubt there is a single person in america willing to accept ... Thankfully there are several europea…

> why don't you offer yourself to Russians to walk them over you? I mean, Russia would be very happy to have Alaska

I'm brazilian. We don't have nuclear weapons. We barely even have a space program. If USA wanted to take the Amazon, I doubt there's anything we could do about it and I seriously doubt anyone else would intervene in our favor.

> Thankfully there are several european nations with independent nuclear capability willing to stand up for Ukraine.

Yeah. So are they really going to risk getting nuked out of existence over Ukraine? I suppose we'll find out.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#244

Post by darksaints »

jmyeet wrote: post #150

So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months: 1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine; 2. Failed to capture Kyiv; 3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass; 4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership; 5. Suffered huge casulaties; 6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project); 7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the…

More people should be listening to Fiona Hill on this issue...she knows Putin better than any other outsider. And she has been saying the same thing for years: that if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll start using nukes. He wants to be seen as someone who restored the glory of the Russian empire, and he will use any tool at his disposal to get it. His lack of use of nukes up until this point doesn't really mean that he is bluffing, it is about timing and situational prudence; now is just not the right time. Also, she keeps saying that World War 3 has already started, we just haven't acknowledged it yet.

Those are positive, not normative analyses. The real question is what do we do about it. And I can't help but think that if it is more or less inevitable that he will use nukes before losing the war, and the only reason he hasn't used them yet is because of situational timing, then the approach that stands out to me is that we're in a better position to attack him now than we would be when he thinks the timing is right to blow up the world.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#245

Post by pydry »

rmind wrote: post #184
jmyeet wrote: post #150

So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months: 1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine; 2. Failed to capture Kyiv; 3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass; 4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership; 5. Suffered huge casulaties; 6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project); 7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the…

You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year). Russian military industry also lost access to the Western high tech (unfortunately, a lot of it has been used in their modern equipment, such as missiles, aircraft, etc). It will take at least a decade for them rebuild the armed forces after the war with Ukraine. There is indeed a risk of Kr…

>You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year

The conservative estimate was that the ruble would plunge about 30% as a result of the war. It's now bizarrely higher than its been in 5 years.

I dont remember anybody foreseeing that. Zero. Not one analyst. Ive only heard retrospective justifications for why it happened which any idiot can come up with.

I definitely cant believe Russia is coming out of this unscathed but economic predictions are a crapshoot at the best of times and these are very much uncharted territories.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#246

Post by ericmay »

msh wrote: post #114
ericmay wrote: 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…

>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. Well if it prevents them from cooperating with someone else it might still be worth it.

True - though I think I’m this case military power is less of an issue than diplomatic and political capital.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#247

Post by ericmay »

mcv wrote: post #175
ericmay wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd definitely be kicked out at this point if push came to shove. No doubt about that. There's no value in a member who doesn't cooperate. Both Finland and Sweden are very much aligned with the rest of NATO and if member states object to them joining you basically set the precedent that one member state (that's not the US/UK) can hold the group hostage. There's no way that would be tolerated, regardless of the str…

I really don't think so. Turkey is in a very strategic location. Turkey has leverage and a very good chance of getting the concessions they want. Which is sad, because I care about the Kurds, and they seemed to be one of the few good, humane groups in Syria.

Yea I mean you’re free to disagree or course and we won’t really know for sure until something like this gets tested, but I’ve stated my opinion on the matter and don’t have much else to add.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#248

Post by macintux »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #229
ddalex wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the neighbour that doesn't like my friends broke into my house repeatedly, stole my last food a couple of times, kidnapped several household members, raped my wife and my kid; and now threatens to burn the whole city down if I don't give up my new friends that protect my house. So yes, lets' burn the city down, why should I live in hell and fear - it's better that no one lives, including the asshole neighbour.

So what? All that is nothing compared to the literal destruction of this planet. Better to let them walk all over you than risk destroying the world everybody lives in. I seriously doubt there is a single person in america willing to accept even the possibility of being utterly annihilated by nuclear fire over some foreign european nation. War against Vietnam or Iraq is one thing, war against Russia is on a completel…

The question becomes what sort of world do we want for our children: one where nuclear-armed nation-states simply take what they want (and remember, it’s not just Russia and the U.S. who have nuclear weapons) because it’s better to appease them?

The mere existence of nuclear weapons means that our future is in jeopardy. That bell can’t be unrung. But it doesn’t mean we have to allow the fear of that hypothetical future to prevent us from standing up to genocide.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#249

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jmyeet wrote: post #150

So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months: 1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine; 2. Failed to capture Kyiv; 3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass; 4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership; 5. Suffered huge casulaties; 6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project); 7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the…

> A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade.

It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? If they folded, Russia could have taken all of Ukraine, and the only price would be the sanctions. Putin could easily have thought that it would be worth the price.

The question was, what were the odds of Ukraine folding? Putin may have thought they were 90%, which would make it a worthwhile gamble. I'm not sure anyone in the West regarded the current situation as the most likely outcome, either.

So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that "a lot of this was forseeable". The sanctions were (though perhaps not to this level). NATO solidarity and Finland and Sweden joining were somewhat forseeable. I'm not sure that the rest were.

Re: Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership

#250

Post by jmyeet »

rmind wrote: post #233
jmyeet wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't put a lot of stock in the Russian Imperialism ambitions as being a serious factor in this invasion. I just don't think it adds up. I mean even if Putin was saying this, that doesn't mean a lot. The US, for example, says they're spreading democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, fro example. I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this…

You are buying too much into the Russian propaganda. First, it is not NATO which expanded "into" the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. These countries voluntarily applied and their diplomats lobbied very hard to get accepted into NATO, precisely because of Russia's aggressive and militaristic policies. Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"? Why do you think somebody sho…

Arguing NATO didn't expand into the Baltic states is semantics, at best. Sure the countries have to apply to join but the current NATO members have to acquiesce. Even with this relationship the US can (and has) communicated policy prior to expansion. The act of expnasion itself is evidene of US policy since the US could veto it fif it was something it didn't want.

My suspicion is you're viewing the US as a benign hegemony. The problem with this thinking is it makes it harder to see things from the other side, namely that another foreign power might reasonably perceive "benign" actions as hotile.

This is especially true of NATO, which was founded on the idea of screwing the USSR (quite literally). Well the USSR doesn't exist anymore yet NATO persists. Russia has to view that as aggressive especially with continued expansion. The standard response here is that NATO is a defensive alliance, which is complete BS (eg Libya, Kosovo, basing nuclear weapons capable of hitting Moscow in Turkey).

> Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"?

Because there are advantages to being neutral. You can't get roped into a war you didn't consent to. The great powers that border you tend to be happier with your neutrality than picking sides. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland are all countries in Europe who have policies of neutrality. A neutral state between great powers is by definition a buffer state.

And like I said, the US does exactly the same thing. Do you think the US would idly sit by if Mexico and Canada decided to join a military alliance with China and allow China to build forward operating bases along the US border? There's absolutely no shot.

So why if the US would never allow Chinese military bases on its border should the US be surprised that Russia would have the exact same objection?

> Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty?

Because joining NATO requires mutual consent. No country has a right to join if NATO declines and NATO does have a right to decline. Germany in particular has indicated they had no intention of allowing Ukraine to join NATO for pretty much exactly the reasons we're seeing now.

> With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that?

That's my point: this has been a massive miscalculation by Putin. But not all borders are created equal. Geography matters. A border with Ukraine is of more strategic threat than a border with Finland just because most of Ukraine is flat.

> This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion

My sense is they trid to decapitate Ukraine's leadership and pave the way for a pro-Russian regime. This was a massive miscalculation. TListen to anyone who knows anything about the military and you'll find estimates that Russia would probably need over 400,000 soldiers to occupy Ukraine. They don't have that. They couldn't afford it if they did.

Post reply on HN