361–370 of 738 posts
Earlier 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does NATO benefit?
It's easier to defend Denmark, Norway and Finland if Sweden is not in the way. With this, Sweden is more likely to become completely "open" to NATO operations in any conflict that involves defending those three NATO members.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweden and Finland have been in the EU for almost 30 years. Sweden joining NATO does not really change the geopolitics of the Baltic.
The EU is not a military alliance, NATO is. There is a substantial difference between countries being in the EU only and being in NATO (either only or along with the EU.)
This is great news and NATO benefits hugely from this. I have to hand it to putin for bringing further solidarity across Europe and NATO.
How does NATO benefit?
It also means NATO controls the Baltic Sea completely.
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.
It has been going better than the last 30 years. Military cooperation in Europe broke down with the last Reforger of '93. It is great that Europe cooperates more, the view of the US public on NATO can be seen in any US TV series or Hollywood film - it does not exist.
Granted, a widespread problem, but, in my experience, nowhere as bad as in contemporary Germany. Why is that?
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. No, it wouldn't. NATO deciding it was willing to piss off Russia (which is why, without those active conflicts, Ukraine and Georgia were denied MAPs in 2008) would allow NATO membership. There's no actual rule that would prevent Ukraine from joining during the invasion (and even if there w…
What practical difference would joining NATO make in the short term though? Ukraines problems are logistical and attrition and they have very strong NATO support. The red lines about prodding Russia will still exist and the supply shortages across the EU will as well. Joining NATO makes sense in peace time and so diplomats can hang out at conferences and get formally connected to intelligence data. But how different…
Depends on the terms.
If, say, Article 5 excluded defined territories whose control was actively contested at the time or which were occupied by Russia with an explicit time limit, and applied fully to the rest of the country (including places Russia likes to lob missiles but cannot yet effectively contest for control of), that would pretty substantially change the Russian calculus of the war.
And especially if it also came with the kind of forward deployment (to the covered part of Ukraine) of NATO troops made to other eastern-flank countries, it would free up Ukrainian forces to deal with the contested and currently-occupied areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweden has a pretty solid defense industry. Gripens and NLAWs for example are Swedish production.
Correction: NLAWs are only Swedish designed(SAAB defense) but are production of Thales(a French company) manufactured in Belfast, Northern Ireland(UK), using warheads made by a subsidiary of SAAB in Switzerland. Yes, I'm fun at parties.
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…
> It's clear that at least from Clinton on, I think from Clinton's point of view, at least for a large portion of his term, there was no one to defend europe _from_. Russia was in shambles and retreating everywhere.
Being a NATO member gives a nation more security than nuclear weapons, effectively. Nuclear states can and HAVE gone to wars - but no one wants to mess with the devastating conventional power of NATO. After the recent gutting, Russia has a few dozen SU-34s that can fly. NATO has thousands of planes.
And Ukraine is about to receive their F-16s
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…