441–450 of 738 posts
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
The EU is independent of the US. There's a difference between alliance and dependency (and EU isn't coextensive with European NATO, but they are pretty close.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not saying that's accurate It's fairly accurate
Less accurate for a NATO that contains Sweden & Finland, though. There's no doubt those 2 have and will pull their weight. Speaking as a Canadian, whose country doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is indeed the joke. Hopefully you don't get downvoted for asking a question.
It was a very well veiled one too. If not for your comment I would not have realized it. I suspect people downvoting it didn't get it either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That happened in response to being invaded by Russia.
[flagged]
I had the same question and I don’t think I can squint enough to make this post make sense. I really enjoy coming here for the tech/hacker concentration, though I do miss the general audience topics you’d find on old Reddit. While I don’t use Reddit any more, I’m concerned that allowing general audience topics like this is a path toward diluting the best thing about HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprised I had to scroll down to see this. Collective defense means expanded nuclear umbrella from the nuke powers in NATO. TFCMA/WP/Russian doctrine has always allowed a free hand for local commanders to use tactical weapons - a very tempting option to deal with Sweden[1] in the event of a Baltic/Kaliningrad land grab. Admission to NATO is a barrier to that, since the West doesn't exactly believe in small bites whe…
You mean the USA will launch nuclear missiles on Moscow in case Russia launches a missile on Stockholm? NATO or not, I have my doubts here. Does anyone believe any sane US president would risk a destruction of the USA to revenge / protect Sweden?
It's of course unclear what would happen, but I don't think Russian strategy can rely on US not responding.
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…
It doesn't obligate members to respond militarily, it obligates NATO members to consider an attack against a member as an attack against them. Retaliation and any other action needs to be discussed by NATO members and can also be vetoed. A lot of people seem to think that if article 5 is brandished, war will result, it absolutely depends on what the council will agree upon.
And there is Article 4 collective regional security, which has ultimately resulted in more NATO combat operations than Article 5, which has been invoked exactly once, even though the former has even less explicit obligation than Article 5.