Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does NATO benefit?
We have a permanent aircraft carrier in the Baltic.
Did you mean the strategically located island of Gotland, which has been called an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"?
Sweden Is a NATO Member
271–280 of 738 posts
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder time defending itself against aggression.
It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestr…
Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#273Serious question, what does this change? NATO gets a bit more revenue from Swedish taxpayers? So what?
Sweden joining means they have lost the Baltic Sea as the only entrance is now controlled by two NATO countries. Finland Joining has helped lock down the Baltic sea but most importantly is a staging ground for cutting logistics to the largest military complex on the Kola peninsula. This war is not just about Russias energy politics, it's also very much about their need for more maritime access. THis map shows where R…
NATO is a defensive pact, if there was a NATO naval blockade there would already be war with NATO which almost certainly means escalation to nuclear war. that's my take anyway.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#274Earlier 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.
The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade).
In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment really illustrates the hollowness of the "NATO expanded too aggressively" claim. NATO didn't force any of these ex-Soviet countries to join. They ran to join NATO as soon as they could. They'd experienced living with the Russian boot on their neck, and they were eager to join a collective security organization to prevent it from ever happening again.
[flagged]
Let me do something similar to you what you did with this comment: allowing Russia to develop nukes shouldn't have been tolerated, the morally correct course of action was to prevent it.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Germany's Army Chief straight up said the army wasn't capable of fulfilling its mission. (And yeah the US struggled with artillery shells too, the difference is that the US has so much airpower it had a legit reason to…
Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.
That only works if you are filling your side of the bargain. If you depend on the US and don't have your own army equipped, and the US depends on your army and isn't equipped to rescue you it all fails.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#277Let's do Armenia next.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because no member wants to be seen as unreliable, risking their own security in the future, so everyone will in practice assist in any way they can.
Or they might calculate WWIII isn't worth it? Imagine Russia attacks Latvia. Would the US really risk getting into direct conflict with Russia over it?
Would the US really risk its name and face ignoring their biggest and most powerful military alliance? Honour and keeping your word are very important in geopolitics, especially among countries that have been allied for almost a century, and you won't remain the top dog very long if you avoid your duties at the first difficulty.
So yes, if Russia attacks Latvia, you better believe the US is gonna send everything they have against Russia. That's the whole point of NATO.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#279Adding another western European country that's under no threat from anyone to NATO isn't going to do anything. We should be adding backwards countries that share borders with or are targets of major enemies, like Georgia and Taiwan. You can't control the world if all you're doing is protecting yourself and your buddies from yourself and your buddies. We need to get Israel in NATO so that the next time Hezbollah fires…
We should form an org similar to NATO but for the Pacific. Why would Taiwan join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
There is the American–Japanese–Korean trilateral pact signed in 2023. The US and South Korea, Philippines, and Japan have bilateral defense treaties.
The US used to have treaty with Taiwan. There was proposed NEATO in the 50s, but Korea wasn't over WW2, and Japan is defense-only in constitution.
The big problem is that signing defense treaty with Taiwan would require change to the status quo and probably kick off a war.
Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member
#280This is great news and NATO benefits hugely from this. I have to hand it to putin for bringing further solidarity across Europe and NATO.
Yeah. We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?!
Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?