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

231–240 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#231

Post by somenameforme »

solardev wrote: post #180
freedomben wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree as IMHO a diverse world that more accurately reflects the desires of local populations is a good thing, but I'd be curious to know why you would like the EU to seek independency from the US. What do you mean by that? Economic or more? Do you mean more home-grown tech companies for example?

Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder time defending itself against aggression.

It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power.

We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestrained wars between two nuclear powers. That's completely unprecedented in the entirety of our history, and it's not a coincidence.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#232

Post by miroljub »

nostrebored wrote: post #192

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…

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#233

Post by watwut »

gfodor wrote: post #63
troupo wrote: post #47

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

Taken together what you wrote here is a convenient framework for all blame of any possible nuclear exchange to be entirely disconnected from NATO.

If Russia starts nuclear exchanges yes they will be solely responsible. They are being aggressor.

Also, they signaled wish to expand beyond Ukraine multiple times last year.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#234

Post by ProjectArcturis »

tharmas wrote: post #121
troupo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia: signed the memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine's borders, sovereignty and independence. Also Russia: "NATO pinky promised in a discussion between two people no one remembers that it wouldn't expand East, so we're invading Ukraine and threatening you with nuclear war"

They signed when they were weak. That's Great Power Politics. The USA was sole Hegemon. It could do whatever it wanted. The West continued to provoke Russia because the West knew Russia was too weak to do anything about it. The West's arrogance was in underestimating how Russia would react as they continued to provoke them. (By "provoke" I mean doing things that the West knew that the Russians wouldn't like). The neo…

From a purely realpolitik standpoint, this war is going very well for the US. Russia is bogged down in a stalemate, with 100,000 soldiers dead already. (vs 10,000 over 10 years in Afghanistan). They've destroyed the idea that Russia is the second-strongest army in the world. NATO is now stronger and larger than ever, and haven't taken a single casualty.

My heart goes out to the Ukrainians, who are fighting determinedly not to be liquidated by Putin's mafia state. But the Dick Cheneys of the world couldn't be happier that Putin decided to invade.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#235

Post by Rebelgecko »

sschueller wrote: post #51
bilekas wrote: post #4

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.

[flagged]

The German Air Force's USA/Canada command has a couple thousand people in the US (granted, the US military has more people than that in Germany)

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#236

Post by ProjectArcturis »

Terr_ wrote: post #207
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin is attacking Ukraine as hard as he can. We don't need to worry about provoking more aggression out of him.

That seems like a non-sequitur, did you intend to reply to a different comment/thread?

No, I'm responding to your last sentence.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#237

Post by psunavy03 »

Log_out_ wrote: post #223
pandemic_region wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget he also raised awareness for Europe's dependency on Russian fossil fuels and accelerated there move to green energy across the world. What a guy!

It's KGB, they are the MBAs of the east. If they would capture something innovative in the wild, they would shoot the team and put the thing in a "palace of innovation" in mocowardia.

> It's KGB, they are the MBAs of the east.

Of all the takes I've heard in my life, that is certainly one of them.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#238

Post by lawn »

alienicecream wrote: post #111

Adding another western European country that's under no threat from anyone to NATO isn't going to do anything. We should be adding backwards countries that share borders with or are targets of major enemies, like Georgia and Taiwan. You can't control the world if all you're doing is protecting yourself and your buddies from yourself and your buddies. We need to get Israel in NATO so that the next time Hezbollah fires…

> Adding another western European country that's under no threat from anyone to NATO isn't going to do anything.

Russia has threatened Sweden with nukes.

> We should be adding backwards countries that share borders with or are targets of major enemies

Sweden serves a very strategic purpose against Russia, the old enemy of USA, by making Östersjön a NATO sea and with the island of Gotland as a base.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#239

Post by SllX »

malermeister wrote: post #194
freedomben wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree as IMHO a diverse world that more accurately reflects the desires of local populations is a good thing, but I'd be curious to know why you would like the EU to seek independency from the US. What do you mean by that? Economic or more? Do you mean more home-grown tech companies for example?

Not the person you responded to, but I agree that the EU needs a bit more independence from the US. To me, it's mostly about being able to stand up for ourselves on a world stage - ideally through a common EU military that is strong enough to deter adversaries even without US support. My main reason is the instability of the American political climate and the way every four years there's an election between a centris…

Speaking as an American I want this for the EU as well. I liked the prior world order, but I think the dream of keeping it alive died when our current dumbass-in-chief pulled out of Afghanistan in the stupidest way possible. The previous dumbass-in-chief who may well be the next dumbass-in-chief if the current one loses also abandoned our Kurdish allies and is promising to do worse than that.

Also, I like Europe. I don’t want to see it falter.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#240

Post by ProjectArcturis »

nyolfen wrote: post #219
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment really illustrates the hollowness of the "NATO expanded too aggressively" claim. NATO didn't force any of these ex-Soviet countries to join. They ran to join NATO as soon as they could. They'd experienced living with the Russian boot on their neck, and they were eager to join a collective security organization to prevent it from ever happening again.

[flagged]

I think you skipped several steps in this argument. Can you explain more please?
Post reply on HN