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

321–330 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#321

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

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]

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 Russia but rather it weakens Russia's hand and that is its main complaint. It didn't have a basis for a deal with NATO or the US. Russia has had nukes adjacent to NATO countries for a long time.

There is no moral justification for invasion unless you've already been invaded by that party.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#323

Post by somenameforme »

heroiccocoa wrote: post #136
richrichie wrote: post #100

[flagged]

The destruction, death and injuries seen in occupied Ukraine are already absolutely equivalent to nuclear war, minus the radiation. Also, I imagine the next nuclear weapons to be used in conflict will try to minimize their lingering "dirty" nature. So the added threat of nuclear annihilation is inconsequential.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 - almost entirely civilians. And those were tiny little bombs relative to what exists now a days. The biggest nuke ever tested, Tsar Bomba, is more than 3,000 more powerful than those.

And many don't seem to realize what nuclear war will be like. It's not going to be two sides launching little tactical nukes at each other's armies. If nuclear war breaks out, the involved countries are going to try to eliminate the other country. Not their army or their military, which can be rebuilt, but literally completely destroy the other country. US nuclear targets were declassified some time back. [1] While we did of course focus on trying to eliminate Soviet air capability, we were also planning to extensively bomb civilian population centers, medical production centers, industry, and more. And it's 100% guaranteed that the Soviet target list looked pretty similar.

Conventional war is nothing even remotely comparable to what nuclear war will entail.

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

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#324

Post by jasonvorhe »

rmbyrro wrote: post #58
pavlov wrote: post #7

Just in time for Trump to do the rug pull he agreed with Putin back in 2018, when they met in Helsinki and Trump took care to even destroy translator’s notes. If he wins the election, NATO is toast and Putin has carte blanche over East Europe.

Not vouching for him, but Trump did alert the Germans about the risk of over relying on Russian energy [1]. He wanted Europe to become independent of Putin years before this crisis. He did not say these things in the most appropriate way, like everything he says, but it didn't seem like he wanted to weaken Europe before Russia, quite the opposite. [1] https://youtu.be/liGZGGQTYQk?si=Rafuq8eoKc84vpG1

It has been quite common knowledge that one of the US' biggest fears has always been a strong German industry paired with cheap Russian energy. It's not like Trump or anyone else had to raise some kind of alert here. The dependency was quite obvious and a choice by Germany.

Unfortunately they're nothing but a vassal NATO outpost by now so the deindustrialization is probably going to continue until some far right party takes over.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#325

Post by TulliusCicero »

PeterStuer wrote: post #302
dragonwriter wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Yes, we surely are buying those F35's out of our own free will. /s

Unironically correct.

European defense contractors completely skipped making fifth gen fighters (other than some partnerships with the US on theirs), so there are literally no European fifth gen options on the table to even consider. This makes it pretty easy for the F-35 to cruise to victory in competitive selection processes, it's simply more advanced.

Hopefully this changes for sixth gen, with the two different European programs there. While I'm American myself, I think things work out better if there's some friendly competition.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#326

Post by usrusr »

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…

Putin's war isn't a useful term though, because there are so many of them.

Regarding change from "that Russia" to the modern one, I'm afraid there has been change, to the worse. The Soviet incarnation of the empire was at least nominally bound to the progressive ideas of socialism (which is completely orthogonal to wether those ideas are workable or not), whereas the current incarnation is openly worshipping the fascist ideas of strength and domination, and the struggle to get there.

When Russians claim that they don't understand why someone would willingly ally with others who don't prove worthy by actively coercing them, chances are it's genuine, they really don't understand. Sometimes I wonder if their language even has a word for friendship based on equality that is separate from an asymmetric allegiance based on status gradient. Perhaps all the non-gradient terminology was gobbled up by socialist ideology and now the very idea of peers is out, except where seeing it through the socialist lense still fits?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#327

Post by dmix »

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…

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 is that to the data feeds Ukraine gets today?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#328

Post by u320 »

Terr_ wrote: post #160
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.

This doesn't sit well with me, even with the disclaimer. I think it's because: 1. It suggests that there's a distinct objective/legalistic blocker to Ukraine's membership, when in reality the bar is "whatever existing NATO members want." 2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian…

There is a legal blocker and that is the war. Nato can not admit a member that is at war with Russia without starting a huge war.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#329

Post by tcmart14 »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #240
nyolfen wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think you skipped several steps in this argument. Can you explain more please?

I think the argument is, if its okay for eastern European nations to run to NATO (and we defend it as self determination), it should be fine when countries decided to run the opposite way (toward the USSR in this case). I will be honest, I agree.I believe Ukraine has the right to self determine their own relationships on the international stage, and I also believe Cuba does too. Although to me, the biggest fuck is, we didn't have like Cuba, we just needed a relationship sufficient enough for Cuba to side with us instead of the USSR. And I think that was a mistake. We do this Saudi Arabia, we should not be on as good of terms with Saudi Arabia as we are. But the reality is, if we are not, some other heavily influential country on the international stage will.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#330

Post by bluGill »

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…

NATO could even allow Ukraine to join as a indirect declaration of war. If Russia attacks Finland (or any NATO country) today, Ukraine will probably be invited to join instantly - NATO would already be at war and expanding the scope help NATO (giving some place else to attack from) far more than the need to defend an additional country would hurt.
Post reply on HN