Live data from Hacker News

Sweden Is a NATO Member

government.se

431–440 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#431
post #344
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was practically no debate this time. Not because everyone was on board, but because any debate was basically suppressed. There was some debate in the past couple of decades however.

There was no debate because everyone was on board. I'm so sick and tired about people lying about this online. There was an election! And many, many polls! ALL OF THEM SHOWED LIKE 80% SUPPORT! But the anti-Nato people are butthurt and feel the need to rewrite history to foreigners. Din jävla fjant.

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#432

It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.

In a way, sure. But it would also be nice if we were more codependent, in a way? For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.

If the US could just stop swinging wildly between two parties who hate each other being in control every couple of years, that might get done.

These sorts of big complex trade agreements take _ages_ to negotiate and require a certain degree of stability; given the US's current hyper-partisanship it's probably not happening any time soon. Realistically TTIP was dead the day Trump was elected.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context 'control' means having power over. If you're not independent then another country has power over your actions. Mere influence is insufficient since the influence runs two ways, which is the case between the EU and US.

Doesn't this imply that the EU and the US are equal powers? They aren't, right?

For their purposes, yes. The EU has more population, and the US has more military, but those things don't matter between them.

Is a marriage unequal because the male could beat the female at any time because he's stronger?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#434
FYI "The head of the Russian General Staff Academy announced the threat of a “large-scale war in Europe”

The state agency RIA Novosti on Thursday reported on an article by Vladimir Zarudnitsky, head of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The article was written in the departmental magazine “Military Thought” and was “at the disposal” of the agency.

The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine into a large-scale war in Europe cannot be ruled out; the likelihood of Russia being drawn into new military conflicts is increasing, the main idea of the RIA Novosti article is retold.

“The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine cannot be ruled out - from the expansion of participants in the ‘proxy forces’ used for military confrontation with Russia to a large-scale war in Europe,” wrote General Zarudnitsky.

“The main source of military threats to our state is the anti-Russian policy of the United States and its allies, waging a new type of hybrid war in order to completely weaken Russia, limit its sovereignty and destroy territorial integrity,” the general was quoted by Reuters, which also noted that a high-ranking A Russian military officer warned of the threat of the conflict in Ukraine escalating into a full-scale war in Europe.

Zarudnitsky's comments come as the West struggles to help Ukraine with more weapons and money after a failed counteroffensive, Reuters noted."

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#435
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?! Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?

> We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?! There's nothing inherently wrong with an administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators – but in this instance I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the United States "put [Putin into power]", assuming you're referring to the United States' i…

> Think of it more as a measure of outsized impact on the world in a given year.

I was Time's Person of the Year in 2006, all i did was get in arguments with people i didn't even know.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#436
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France and Germany rearming… what a great idea!

Considering the invasion of Ukraine for the second time in 10 years, and the official threats of using nuclear weapons, rearming doesn't sound as bad as before.

There were actually three distinct invasions - Crimea in early 2014, Donbas in summer/autumn 2014 (after the rebels started losing), and finally 2022.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#437

I get that we've decided 'NATO Good' now -- but are people really so sure that it's sphere of influence is geopolitically stabilizing? I don't see how it could be. If I were Russia, or an ally of Russia, an expansionist NATO would be galvanizing for me and would accelerate a counterbalance alliance. Creating a potentially entrenched conflict in countries that have surface-to-surface access to Moscow would be in my be…

Maybe if Russia weren't an active threat to all its neighbors, its neighbors wouldn't want to join NATO so badly.

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#438
post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany. I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be…

It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.

I'm unaware of those, but I do know that US nuclear targets from the 50s were relatively recently declassified [1], and they were far more macabre.

We focused on taking out Soviet air forces (to eliminate their ability to deliver nukes of their own - as this was before the USSR had developed ICBMs), but also focused on targets marked simply as "population" as well as medical production facilities. The goal was not to just defeat the military, but to literally destroy the nation. And I'm certain the USSR had, more or less, identical plans. And I suspect those still remain the plans for both sides to this day.

Nukes aren't going to falling out in the middle of nowhere trying to take out military bases, they're going to be falling in NYC, San Francisco, Moscow, and St. Petersburg - to try to completely take out the other country's population and economy. Nuclear war is do or die. The goal is going to be to eliminate the enemy's country from the face of this Earth, so that they can't just recover to become a threat 10 years down the line.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nucl...

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#439

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.

All indications suggest that Russia also wants Odessa and the rest of the black sea coastline, which would probably never be acceptable even with NATO membership.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN