Sweden Is a NATO Member • Hacker News Board

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#471

Post by secondary_op » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:46 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #346

TulliusCicero wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principle is interdependency, but in practice many European militaries don't have a ton to give. Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. There's renewed interest in taking the defense budget seriously.

> Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. So did the US until the 2001 (and, actually, the free fall in US military spending relative to GDP started well before the end of the cold war), and by the 2010s it was back falling in the US, too. > Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. It actually changed since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 for…

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#472

Post by AlGrothendieck » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

The_Colonel wrote: post #414

Ygg2 wrote: 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?

Before war in Georgia, Putin had a pretty good image in the West. Back then Putin was nowhere near bad as in the recent years. Power corrupts, long time rulers get crazier with time...

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#473

Post by protomolecule » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #468

protomolecule wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

OK, I should have said in response to actions by Russia, which is the point, my timeline is obviously wrong.

All the Russian actions happened later.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#474

Post by dkjaudyeqooe » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:48 PM UTC

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #459

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, a marriage is unequal if one party has more strength, money, guns, technology, etc. Actual equality is a really rare thing in nature. Someone always has more, whether they are currently using that against the other party or not. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the US is still the leading superpower by quite a margin. It may not be brought up explicitly in negotiations, but that fact is always there. Maybe I'm…

OK I'll spell it out: they're friendly nations who respect each others sovereignty. Actual power is irrelevant because it's not used. Claims to the contrary tend to be political and sometimes conspiracy theories motivated by animus. A reasonable person would readily agree they're friendly nations.

The US doesn't threaten or intimidate the EU or vica versa (Trump is an aberration).

To further make the point: NATO membership means they've undertaken to fight and die for each other's protection, how much more friendly can you get?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#475

Post by hnarn » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:48 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #418

u320 wrote: post #293

One thing that isn't mentioned a lot in connection to this: Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. Now we are allied and committed to defend each other. That's a huge thing for peace.

I have many Serbian friends going for holidays in Croatia. Unthinkable 30 years ago. So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?

> So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?

While not technically impossible, practically this is very hard to see. Unless Russia becomes a market liberal, well functioning democracy, it will not happen -- and what are the odds of that?

Russia had the chance after the collapse of the Soviet Union, instead it devolved into a plutocracy and what is essentially a one-party state in anything but name.

Regardless of what some people might think, in no small part due to many people seeing Russia as the spiritual successor to the SU combined with its vast geographical size, Russia is not a superpower, and will not become one in our lifetime.

Yes, they have nukes. So does the UK, and the UK economy is 20% larger than Russia despite is essentially being an island off Europe. How about France? They have nukes too, and their economy is 30% larger.

Russia is a failed state at the tail end of a century long brain drain, crippled by corruption and authoritarian rule, but none of these things are the most deciding factor in why they will never be part of NATO; the primary reason is that Russia quite simply has an empire complex.

What do you get if you combine economical stagnation and a dead empire inferiority complex? You get Hitler, or in this case Putin, and I very much doubt any of us will see a "rehabilitation" of the Russian people like we saw in Germany in our lifetime.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#476

Post by pimlottc » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:48 PM UTC

throwrus344 wrote: post #448

factorialboy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the contribution and sacrifice of Ukraine

[dead]

> I humbly bow before the Ukraine.

Note that “Ukraine” is now preferred to “the Ukraine”; the latter term was used in Soviet times to diminish its autonomy by implying it was just a region of the USSR.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#477

Post by nikolay » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #420

nikolay wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's closer to WWIII, of course. Our extinction is imminent. It's always been just a matter of time!

I wonder if fission will come first though.

Imminently. We always use the best weapons at our disposal and care less about selves or others!

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#478

Post by xdennis » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:50 PM UTC

sph wrote: post #278

dataflow wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Would the US really risk its name and face ignoring their biggest and most powerful military alliance? Honour and keeping your word are very important in geopolitics, especially among countries that have been allied for almost a century, and you won't remain the top dog very long if you avoid your duties at the first difficulty. So yes, if Russia attacks Latvia, you better believe the US is gonna send everything they…

I'm pro NATO, but I don't think the support of the US is guaranteed. The US has always been an unreliable partner: it depends on who's in power.

If the republican war hawks or moderate Democrats are in power they would support Latvia, but libertarians and far leftists would say "it's not our problem".

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#479

Post by yencabulator » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:52 PM UTC

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #161

jajko wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

I have a different perspective. If NATO hadn't expanded to Turkey, Sweden and Finland would have had a much easier time not being blackmailed. NATO expanding to essentially-dictatorship countries was too eager.

And yes, I understand Turkey's geographical position giving it power over sea routes, and why that was desirable to NATO. But choosing to include a fickle ruler in a unanimous-decisions-only organization is just asking for trouble.

(The Baltics wanted in on NATO, and it's good that they got in. They're largely decently run small countries in a tough spot, not world stage bullies.)

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#480

Post by xpl » Thu, Mar 07, 2024, 7:52 PM UTC

AlGrothendieck wrote: post #446

dralley wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Watch the recent Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin.

There is a literally 2 hours long historical lecture from Putin, explaining in great detail why (to his opinion) Ukraine doesn't and shouldn't exist as a sovereign state and "in fact" never was, since the beginning of the history, LMAO. This is what really concerns him, if you listen. In his reality, Ukraine is a Russian province, not an independent state.

He goes as far as justifying Hitler's attack on Poland ("they made him to attack by not voluntarily giving away their territory, it was Poland's fault") — sic. You see where he goes?

So it seems that NATO didn't bother him very much, it is just a red herring or "diplomatic speak" to express his true concerns. The real issue is Ukraine's sovereignty / independence. Joining NATO is just an act of that sovereignty, that couldn't be tolerated.