611–620 of 738 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does NATO benefit?
Sweden is a country that makes their own military related stuff: https://youtu.be/d8x8ITwd4Vg?si=ye6-_fe7EJMuqdIg Archer can deploy fire and retreat so quickly, can also fire multiple rounds and have them land on the same target at the same time. As opposed to countries that do not design and manufacture such things themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the people of Ukraine want to get in NATO for protection, how is this the West being arrogant?
Study great power politics and you will understand what I mean. Russia is a nuclear power. That means no matter how much you dislike them for whatever reasons you don't go giving them the finger. That's like giving the Mafia boss the finger when he has a gun pointed at your head. You might think that's brave defiance but inarguably that will get you killed. Study the outrage in the USA when Russia put nuclear missile…
You haven't considered the consequences of folding to nuclear blackmail. That increases the chances bad actors will use nuclear blackmail again (because you've shown it works), and it increases nuclear proliferation because small states start feeling unsafe if larger states refuse to help them defend themselves out of fear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putin had no intention to join NATO, and knew he wouldn't get in. The only reason he would want in is to do the exact same thing that Russia does on the UN security council as a permanent member, which is to stifle and blockade. There are some current NATO members that hold things up, largely Turkey. Coincidentally a large number of smuggled items that get around sanctions to get to Russia...go through Turkey.
Yes, that is a plausible explanation. On the other hand, I have witnessed how the Putin's rhetoric made a U-turn over those dozens of years — from "Fukuyama-level" liberal and pro-Western (early Putin), to "geopolitical realist" and pretty much anti-Western (as of today). I don't know how much this reflects his actual worldview transformation (if there was any), but I have reasons to believe that there is no smoke wi…
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.
And fun facts: Of the 15 wars Denmark started 11 of them and Sweden won 11 of them. Sug på den danskjävlar ;) Sweden is a peaceful coutry and that contry that have lived longest in the world without war, over 200 years.
All nordic countries are very similar in so many ways and our language are almost the same so we can understand, "almost" each (except the Danish people (rest of the nordic countries understand what I mean :), maybe that why there have been conflicts ;) We, the nordic countries see ourself more like a family, like siblings that love each outer but also love to tease each other :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will pull their weight How much do they weigh in comparison to the 800lb gorilla that is the United States?
The non-US members of NATO combined are larger economically, demographically and geographically than the US is. If they all pulled their weight NATO would have (slightly) more contribution from non-US countries than from the US.
This hypothetical doesn't advance the original claim. Sweden might punch well above its weight. But that hardly matters in absolute terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France and Germany rearming… what a great idea!
This is what we have to deal with. People believing that when our enemies are arming themselves, it is somehow problematic to respond? This attitude is fading in Europe (thankfully) but I still see this far too often.
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.
"Why are we shocked? Of course if a country has a weapon it also conceives a situation where it would use it. If a country would never under no circumstance use a weapon it would not have the weapon at all. Every country who has a weapon also conceives a scenario when to use it. Even if they don't issue reminders"
-- My own translation from an interview to Alessandro Barbero
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…
2008 is not 2024.
So neutrality is all a lie.
Sweden had a policy of neutrality in armed conflicts from the early 19th century, until 2009, when it entered into various mutual defence treaties with the European Union (EU), and other Nordic countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_neutrality
Can you expand on your comment at all?