291–300 of 738 posts
This is actually very significant, this time NATO expands to the west, and who knows where next. I wonder what was the debate in Sweden all this time (beyond the waiting for some dictators to give them the final approval)
There was some debate in the past couple of decades however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He (and/or his people) have talked a lot about annexing at least part of Poland. Less sure about the Baltics, but I think there's been some yapping about them too. So, yeah, if you listen to what he and his people say, his motivations are not in doubt...
> He (and/or his people) have talked a lot about annexing at least part of Poland. Do you have a source?
Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. Now we are allied and committed to defend each other. That's a huge thing for peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know Ukraine will not and cannot do this, but writing off it's East and Crimea would enable NATO membership and EU ascension.
This doesn't sit well with me, even with the disclaimer. I think it's because: 1. It suggests that there's a distinct objective/legalistic blocker to Ukraine's membership, when in reality the bar is "whatever existing NATO members want." 2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian…
Even if that meant that NATO would be in direct conflict with Russia, then it would be solved between NATO and Russia.
>2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian territory, over and over, indefinitely.
If sovereign countries' security depends on what delusional dictators write on a piece of paper, then this isn't much of a world worth living in.
Long story short, Putin can claim whatever it wants, in the eyes of the UN, Ukraine has its 1991 borders and that's where they should remain no matter what - even if it means a direct conflict with NATO. Enough with this bluff bullsht.
Are Russians, who live in one of the largest countries in the world filled with resources, going to commit collective suicide because of Ukraine?
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.
Things are looking up for NATO! Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.
Congress blocked his ability to do that without their approval: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/...
EDIT: since other commenters don't know, yes it was signed into law, Sec 1250A of the 2024 NDAA:
>The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
What does that practically mean though? Europe could stop Russia today, independent of the US. The first 18 months of ramping up production would be painful, but there is no question who would win. Does Europe want to project force around the world? If so, why? It's much more cost-efficient to let the US taxpayer foot the majority of the bill for navigable seas.
I can't think of a war following a long peace where this hasn't been the case.
And unfortunately, incompetence is difficult to quickly discover and replace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. It's really doubtful Russia will commit to nuclear war. 2. If it does, it will do that regardless of whether or not NATO enters the war or not. Russia has signalled it has no intentions of stopping its war of conquest
I'd be curious what details you're drawing on to make those conclusions. Regarding #1, do you think this is the case if Ukraine, for example, gains enough traction to attack Russian border cities as a means of preventing a Russian regrouping and counter-attack? Or is the word "commit" doing a lot of heavy lifting here? Regarding #2, I've heard two scenarios that would counter this. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they lik…
That has already happened.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-drones-a9fc4dd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
EU countries including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and eastern Poland have been part of the Russian nation at some point since “ancient Rus”. What makes you think Putin doesn’t want them back? Kaliningrad sits there right in the middle of EU and NATO. That’s got to sting him. Trump’s second term will be his ticket to take a stab at fixing this geopolitical blemish, the mote in the Eastern god’s eye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweden and Finland are in NATO. Leverage from turkey and Hungary is decreasing, if you haven't seen it. Democracy may be slow, but it's still the best system. Additionally, now support for Ukraine can increase and it should go faster. God, I really hope it goes a lot faster...
[flagged]