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

621–630 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#621

Post by ekkodur »

partiallypro wrote: post #597
xpl wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia had in fact expressed desire to join NATO in Putin's early days as a president. Apparently he wanted to fast-track, so it might have hurt his ego somehow, when he was told that Russia is no special. https://web.archive.org/web/20240228155601/https://www.thegu... George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted…

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.

Have you checked direct or inderect export/imports of Greece with Russia? You'll be ashamed to blame Turkiye. If you don't know Greece is also a NATO member.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#622

Post by LtWorf »

luuurker wrote: post #355
roschdal wrote: post #249

Yeah, the expansion of NATO to the east is so successful and peaceful, best thing ever.

I wonder what made Sweden and Finland want to join NATO...

Corruption?

Anyone reading the news in sweden knew they were on the lookout for a casus belli to join NATO… Ukraine invasion was as good as any.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#623

Post by piva00 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #347
piva00 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Militarily the USA has always had the need to keep stockpiles: it's been in many, many wars or performing larger military maneuvers for the past 70+ years. European militaries didn't have to consider a large production capacity, neither stockpiling weapons since mostly weren't involved in large military actions (exceptions probably are France and the UK). In terms of efficiency that is what is expected, why waste tax…

You're just explaining why it got there, and you even acknowledge there should've been wake up calls in 2008 and 2014, but Europe collectively ignored them.

Of course I'm explaining it, because there's a reason why European countries haven't been stockpiling weapons for decades and have been dependent on the USA.

You brought up the dependence on the USA first, I explained why that is:

> In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came.

Europe ignored it because it was politically untenable to push for military spending until 2022 when it became very clear there is a threat escalating conflicts in the continent.

I really don't understand what else I should've done with my comment... Give a solution? What else did you expect?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#625

Post by nikolay »

luuurker wrote: post #604
nikolay wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Trumps get elected soon, NATO won't be such a freebie anymore! I won't be surprised if it gets dismanteled. I can accept an EU army, but NATO is a thing from the past that needs to be revisited!

The goal posts keep moving. Let's get back to what you wrote above. Are you able to find that agreement about NATO expansion or not? Can you explain why countries want to join NATO so bad?

The US Embassador at the time confirmed this was agreed upon!

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#626

Post by gitaarik »

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.

Don't all countries have a very violent history? (:

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#627

Post by Paradigma11 »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #9
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.

How does NATO benefit?

Sweden and Finland came as a pack so lets talk about both of them. Benefits:

It completely neutralizes the Russian Baltic Fleet.

The only railway line supporting Murmansk is less than 200km beyond the finnish border, which means the Nordic Fleet is also compromised.

Potential disadvantages of additional members are added political instability as can be seen with Hungary and Turkey. There is little chance of this with both countries.

Basically you dont defend members, you defend borders and adding Finland and Sweden to the pact makes for a far easier and better developed front. The Finns have been building bunkers and training their population for the next Russian invasion since WW2.

Having Finland as a member strengthens the position of the Baltics, who are threatened by the Suwalki corridor.

Basically it strengthens and stabilizes the northern border to Russia/Belarus.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#628

Post by troupo »

yawnxyz wrote: post #62

Yes, this is a great way to fight against Putin, but... As a Swedish citizen, I think this means in the future Sweden's forces will be dragged into another Iraq-like war down the line. Sooner or later the US or NATO will be the Putin of today, and I don't look forward to that.

> I think this means in the future Sweden's forces will be dragged into another Iraq-like war down the line

This doesn't follow from the NATO treaty.

Perhaps the U.S. will have it's freedom herring moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#629

Post by MasterYoda »

MasterYoda wrote: post #614
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.

"It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history." No it is not, that is incorrect. I really dont know where you get that from. And I dont agree that there have been a VERY violent history. Yes there have been wars, and all war are voilent, but not anything special for that era. Between 1200-1800 there was 15 wars. From 1-10 years and the majority of them lasted just 1 or 2 years. And fun facts: Of the 15…

I have to correct my self, the war length was not between 1-10 years, it was between 1-12 when I checked again.

And about "Hundreds of years of wars." I counted for fun how many years in total Sweden and Danmark was in war with each other between 1207 when the first war started to 1814 when the last one ended, and it was around 54 years in total, over a period of 4 centuries. (54 years are dependent how you count, if a war started 1207 and ended 1208 it could have been both 1 and 2 years long, so I counted 1,5 for all wars. So at best it was 47 years or at worst 64 with a mean time of 3,6 year per war).

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#630

Post by Paradigma11 »

ttymck wrote: post #489
MaxPengwing wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it has already increased, but not due to Sweden and Finland joining. the increase was a direct response to Russia invading Ukraine. https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-... https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... But in same time European allies has also increased their NATO soldiers.

Yes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.

There is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.
Post reply on HN