Sweden Is a NATO Member

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

ursuscamp wrote: post #104

pavlov wrote: post #7

Just in time for Trump to do the rug pull he agreed with Putin back in 2018, when they met in Helsinki and Trump took care to even destroy translator’s notes. If he wins the election, NATO is toast and Putin has carte blanche over East Europe.

This ridiculous hysteria serves no purpose. People said all these same things before his first election, and if anything Trump just accelerated aggression with Russia, just like every president before him and Biden after him.

Post by KingOfCoders » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #150

KingOfCoders wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poland defended Western Europe from a Russian invasion in 1920 and will do so again. Reagan was the last defender of Europe (you can like him or not, having grown up in a left political climate in the 70s of Germany, I didn't), and Reforger '93 was the last time the US seriously considered defending Western Europe. It's clear that at least from Clinton on, the defense of Europe as a necessity for balancing world powe…

US has given money to Ukraine which is in Europe for many years, even before the current war, and has troops stationed in Poland and Germany and trains with a lot of European militaries (for example Finland even before it joined NATO). It is certainly possible that the US has given up on defending Europe just as anything is possible but I don't see any evidence for that. No NATO country has ever been attacked AFAIK s…

Post by dataflow » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

empath-nirvana wrote: post #149

dataflow wrote: post #46

Does being in NATO obligate you to respond militarily if another member is attacked (as is commonly believed)? I failed to find this clause in the text last time I looked. Edit: for everyone telling me to read article 5: I already have, hence this question. It says each member "will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary". That very much doesn't appear to obligate a military response, or any r…

Only if they ask. If you've got it handled, you don't need to invoke article 5.

Post by Horffupolde » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #36

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exercise in team work has not been going great so far. It doesn't look like their is a path to victory in Ukraine and Europe is hesitant to commit any troops. There are some rumblings from Macron but most of Europe would prefer to send just enough weapons so Putin can't move forward and Ukraine can't push them out.

Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO nations committing troops would likely drag all of NATO into war with Russia, increasing the chance of a nuclear war. That's not something NATO wants.

Post by realusername » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

lumb63 wrote: post #146

RecycledEle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger alliance is harder to defeat in war. Also, a bigger alliance requires each member to contribute fewer troops to manage a common defense. Sweden is a fairly wealthy country that can contribute the required amount to NATO. Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict. Finally, Sweden does not bring any new potential conflicts/enemies with it.

But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend. For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen. It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.