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

Sweden Is a NATO Member

government.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#391

Post by dragonwriter »

asveikau wrote: post #225
ttymck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you say is true in theory, but does this mean the US will deploy fewer troops in NATO theaters, in practice?

IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland. Many NATO countries will have sizeable factions of their electorate saying to not get involved. The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.

> IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland.

There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#392

Post by dralley »

aubanel wrote: post #373
ianburrell wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is better and cheaper than Gripen or Rafale. Everyone who can buy F-35 is doing so. There were countries that switched when allowed to buy F-35. The Gripen's problem is that it is expensive for a light fighter. The other problem is that uses an American engine and US can control export. There aren't many countries that can't buy F-35 but can buy Gripen. Brazil is the big one. The French Rafale is having more…

The Rafale is cheaper than the F35, by a wide margin.

It is not. A brand new F-35A costs a bit over 70 million. A new Rafale costs a bit over 100 million.

In terms of operating costs, yes the Rafale is cheaper, mostly because it's not stealth.

The fact that France is spending their money in France helps make up the difference - for France. But if you aren't France, the F-35 is a good deal.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#393

Post by jasonvorhe »

dralley wrote: post #126
yawnxyz wrote: post #62

Yes, this is a great way to fight against Putin, but... As a Swedish citizen, I think this means in the future Sweden's forces will be dragged into another Iraq-like war down the line. Sooner or later the US or NATO will be the Putin of today, and I don't look forward to that.

The only way that would happen, is if a NATO member was attacked first, on a territory in the North Atlantic. A NATO member who goes off on their own and starts a war isn't entitled to calling NATO to its defense.

Oh yeah, I forgot, NATO is a defense alliance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#394

Post by vajdagabor »

jajko wrote: post #107
s_dev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the blackmailing by Hungary and Turkey.

Its funny with Hungary, Orban is such an incompetent ruler that currently Hungary is paying way above market prices for gas from Russia. So much for being friends with benefits with russia. You can see how it all is a series of really not that smart moves for Hungary for a long time, borderline treason. And one point generally - please lets stop calling whats happening in Ukraine in any other way than War. putin's wa…

Orban and his team don't work for Hungary. They work for themselves (for a small group around Orban's family), trying to take out as much money and power from every opportunity as they can. This might explain purchasing the gas on higher price (and a huge amount of other controversial deals) and preferring partnerships with corrupt governments and politicians. It's all about business and power.

There are good meticulously researched articles about their businesses here (one of the few remaining independent, reliable sources in Hungary): https://www.direkt36.hu/en/

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#396

Post by [deleted] »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #321
nyolfen wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This a standard Russian talking point. It's a red herring and a fairly weak justification for Russian aggression in Ukraine. The US can make demands and so can anyone. In the case of Cuba they were met by the Soviets willingly who withdrew their missiles and made a deal with the US. Russia objects to NATO membership because it makes bullying and invasion of those with NATO membership impractical. It doesn't threaten…

[deleted]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#397

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

dataflow wrote: post #242
thatwasunusual wrote: post #195

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?

The risk is not getting involved. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, destroying the credibility of that deterrent would destroy the rationale for NATO.

To say nothing of the fact that it'd just be an invite to Russia to invade more countries.

The seeds of WWII were sown by the appeasement of Hitler, which merely emboldened him.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#398

Post by rightbyte »

seydor wrote: post #128

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 almost no debate. The elite made it a fait accompli and labeled nay sayers as traitors.

There is this major pretend that they have popular backing of joining NATO eventhough the sentiment against it is really strong. There was some demands for a referendum, but it was shut down in fear of "fake news" etc.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#399

Post by u320 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #281
KingOfCoders wrote: post #27

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.

> 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…

The entire purpose of joining NATO is to defend against russian imperialism (Something Sweden has a ton experience with, for hundreds of years) Always has been. There is not much point in joining if you exclude that bit.
Post reply on HN