140 replies
4h21m
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.
56 replies
3h46m
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
23 replies
3h44m
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?
16 replies
3h38m
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.
15 replies
3h26m
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.
7 replies
3h12m
Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?
5 replies
2h56m
> Article 5
> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
> such action as it seems necessary, including the use of armed force
There's no mandatory requirement to deploy specific weapons, but I believe all NATO forces would be subordinate to CMC (rotating) and SACEUR (has always been a US leader)? Inasmuch as multinational command structures work.
4 replies
2h48m
Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany.
I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be very difficult to stop without US support, at current defense levels, or without UK or France threatening a universal nuclear defense of other nato members.
3 replies
2h20m
It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member.
But it's definitely shy of 'never'
I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.
1 replies
2h5m
I'm unaware of those, but I do know that US nuclear targets from the 50s were relatively recently declassified [1], and they were far more macabre.
We focused on taking out Soviet air forces (to eliminate their ability to deliver nukes of their own - as this was before the USSR had developed ICBMs), but also focused on targets marked simply as "population" as well as medical production facilities. The goal was not to just defeat the military, but to literally destroy the nation. And I'm certain the USSR had, more or less, identical plans. And I suspect those still remain the plans for both sides to this day.
Nukes aren't going to falling out in the middle of nowhere trying to take out military bases, they're going to be falling in NYC, San Francisco, Moscow, and St. Petersburg - to try to completely take out the other country's population and economy. Nuclear war is do or die. The goal is going to be to eliminate the enemy's country from the face of this Earth, so that they can't just recover to become a threat 10 years down the line.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nucl...
0 replies
23m
There's more nukes than viable military targets, so where are you gonna put 'em? Also, realistically, that's just how things were done back then. During WW2 central Tokyo was pretty much completely leveled in 1 night of bombing. We tend to be a bit more discriminate these days, but I wouldn't bet on it in an actual war for existence.
The world is a nasty place full of pricks who don't give a damn about faceless civilians.
0 replies
1h57m
That's interesting, I could see how even a vague possibility of that sort of response could be a deterrent.
0 replies
2h14m
I think the most likely scenario is that they would transfer control of a number of nuclear weapons to Germany in such a scenario. And that would be more than enough to end the war, or to end the world.
4 replies
2h35m
This could be a good place to Post a reminder that in 1995, Ukraine agreed to hand over all its nuclear weapons to Russia in return of a promise to not threaten or use military force against Ukraine.
3 replies
2h20m
Ukraine had the weapons but no means to use them. Russia had the keys.
1 replies
1h46m
Then why did Russia feel the need to enter into the agreement if holding the keys was sufficient?
0 replies
1h31m
Maybe because these were radically different times, and the "we've always been at war with X or Y" is just a narrative? No, of course not, what a nonsense.
0 replies
5m
Sure, the Ukrainians would have needed some months to refit those weapons.
1 replies
2h57m
Which is why everyone bordering any empire currently looks for nukes or nuke eqivalents,as the American reliability falls apart. Must be fun to work at the iaa nowadays.
0 replies
2h36m
I’m not sure we’d have these new NATO members if American reliability were actually so bad.
5 replies
3h35m
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 centrist and an extremist. Trump has already threatened to invite Putin to invade other NATO countries [0]. We can't risk being dependent on this madman.
2 replies
3h23m
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.
1 replies
2h53m
To be fair, abandoning our Kurdish allies (and before them, our Hmong allies) is an ongoing American theme.
I had a good Kurdish friend who came over on a US carrier after we abandoned them after the Gulf War...
0 replies
37m
Isn't Kurdistan still currently the largest stateless state (so to speak) ?
0 replies
2h39m
Europe is no longer important to USA's strategic interests and it no longer has the money to fund NATO the way it has been doing. But neither can the NATO countries afford to fund their Militaries. UK's military is the smallest its been since the 1740s and it can't afford even that. Look at all the cuts European countries have had to make to social programs. How can they afford to increase military spending?
0 replies
2h47m
I think many in the US would also be happy with a stronger Europe. A friendly peer competitor to call us out if we decided to go to war to ostensibly “spread democracy” would probably be good, for example.
15 replies
3h38m
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.)
8 replies
3h22m
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. Germany's Army Chief straight up said the army wasn't capable of fulfilling its mission.
(And yeah the US struggled with artillery shells too, the difference is that the US has so much airpower it had a legit reason to believe it wouldn't need them very much)
3 replies
3h19m
Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.
1 replies
2h58m
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.
0 replies
2h48m
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 the non-US members of NATO (which was also the trigger for the NATO defense spending target.) It changed for the US after the 2022 escalation (US defense spending as a share of GDP declined between 2014 and the 2022 escalation.)
0 replies
3h12m
That only works if you are filling your side of the bargain. If you depend on the US and don't have your own army equipped, and the US depends on your army and isn't equipped to rescue you it all fails.
2 replies
3h9m
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 taxes for stockpiling unused weapons?
Europe dropped the ball after 2014 on not taking note that Russia was going in a new direction, Georgia 2008 was an early warning but Ukraine 2014 should've been a massive alarm that at least some production capacity was needed. Still, it wasn't at all politically viable at the time, it'd be political suicide for any politician outside of Eastern Europe to spend more money on the military and its industry rather than education, healthcare, etc.
Since 2022 everything has changed, the change is slow but steady and will only keep happening, Rheinmetall is steadily growing production, and many other military industries are expanding across the continent, Putin made politically viable for Europe to spend on its military again.
0 replies
41m
it's been in many, many wars or performing larger military maneuvers for the past 70+ years.
Heh, which of these was Grenada ?
Cynical take: Probably a military maneuver. When the world is quiet, the USA has to pick a fight somewhere to run a shakedown of its newest toys.
0 replies
2h48m
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.
0 replies
2h50m
The German armed forcea are really capabale of doing, or fielding, anything in meaningfull numbers ever since the end of the cold war. No big surprise here.
4 replies
3h1m
Yes, we surely are buying those F35's out of our own free will. /s
3 replies
2h55m
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.
1 replies
39m
There's money to be had. I mean, all in all the F-35 has come to what, something like a trillion dollars ? That'd be $1,000,000,000,000.
0 replies
21m
There's money to be had, but also a lot of money that has to be spent. Which is presumably why European countries/companies didn't develop a fifth gen fighter in the wake of the Cold War ending. Made some sense then, but now it's left them totally reliant on the US if they want a fifth gen (or better) fighter anytime soon.
0 replies
2h39m
It is expensive to make a modern fighter. However you want some competition just to keep everyone honest.
0 replies
2h4m
Do you explain whatever happened to Assange in Europe within the framework of “alliance”?
6 replies
2h50m
You're confused. The US doesn't control the EU in any way.
Or maybe you're not confused and you just object to the US and/or EU, but that's your problem, not theirs.
Terminology note: 'independency' is an archaic form of 'independence' which in this context means a self-governing state as opposed to being controlled by another state. This might be confused with 'interdependence' which is a natural reality of almost everything on earth, but especially those who cooperate and work and trade together.
5 replies
2h38m
If you define "control" narrowly enough, nothing controls anything. But if you use a plain reading of "control" as in "can and will influence the actions of", it seems like "doesn't control in any way" is trivially false.
4 replies
2h24m
In this context 'control' means having power over. If you're not independent then another country has power over your actions. Mere influence is insufficient since the influence runs two ways, which is the case between the EU and US.
3 replies
2h17m
Doesn't this imply that the EU and the US are equal powers?
They aren't, right?
2 replies
2h9m
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?
1 replies
1h54m
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 wrong and the EU wields an equal amount of influence over the US. It certainly sounds a little odd saying it though.
0 replies
1h44m
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?
2 replies
3h20m
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term.
The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with the possible exception of countries that actually border Russia/Belarus).
1 replies
2h58m
If Trump withdraws the US from NATO going back to the old ways is not an option, at least EU doesn't want to lose its Eastern half to Russia.
0 replies
2h20m
If Trump withdraws the US from NATO going back to the old ways is not an option, at least EU doesn't want to lose its Eastern half to Russia.
The tricky thing with politics is that there are always way more hungry stomachs than seats at the table. And people learned a long time ago to frame their pet issue as critical.
And the trouble with military spending is that it's never critical. Until it is. But at that point, it's way too late.
I just don't think that the Ukraine war is a big enough deal to act as a catalyst for permanent change. People have remarkably short memories when it comes to things like that - most European countries were on their way to completely normalized relations with Russia around 2020/2021; not that long after the annexation of Crimea.
I don't expect the exact same thing to happen - trade with Russia will probably be severely restricted for a very long time. But it's really easy to chip away at the military budget in favor of social programs. Especially since the benefit of the latter is obvious and immediate. And those programs will always be strained.
2 replies
3h28m
What does that practically mean though? Europe could stop Russia today, independent of the US. The first 18 months of ramping up production would be painful, but there is no question who would win.
Does Europe want to project force around the world? If so, why? It's much more cost-efficient to let the US taxpayer foot the majority of the bill for navigable seas.
1 replies
3h4m
The first thing a war usually uncovers is that a large part of the peacetime commanders, soldiery, equipment, and military industry is completely incompetent.
I can't think of a war following a long peace where this hasn't been the case.
And unfortunately, incompetence is difficult to quickly discover and replace.
0 replies
1h4m
Yes, but what is the threat to Europe that might cause war? Russia can't even project force to the Polish border. Certainly no military threats coming from North Africa.
1 replies
2h17m
In a way, sure. But it would also be nice if we were more codependent, in a way?
For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.
0 replies
2h10m
If the US could just stop swinging wildly between two parties who hate each other being in control every couple of years, that might get done.
These sorts of big complex trade agreements take _ages_ to negotiate and require a certain degree of stability; given the US's current hyper-partisanship it's probably not happening any time soon. Realistically TTIP was dead the day Trump was elected.
0 replies
3h14m
For what? EU is plenty powerful enough to do that, but for what end. What would they do different that is significant. Sure there are minor differences in various policies and lots of disagreements, but overall our high level aims are too close and so the EU is better off not having to.
Have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex? If the EU wants to be independent they need to develop their own at great cost. (note that the US is already depending on EU's military industrial complex for various things, so you would also force the US to take those in-house) Which is why despite differences the US and EU are likely to remain allies for a long time - you cannot afford to go alone.
29 replies
4h15m
Serious question, what does this change? NATO gets a bit more revenue from Swedish taxpayers? So what?
13 replies
4h10m
If you look at the Baltic Sea before and after the invasion of Ukraine, that was largely a neutral space (before) that has since turned into a NATO one -- excluding only the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.
I would argue this makes any further move by Russia in that space quite problematic.
12 replies
4h2m
Sweden and Finland have been in the EU for almost 30 years. Sweden joining NATO does not really change the geopolitics of the Baltic.
5 replies
3h47m
Given that we (Sweden) have been the preferred partner with Norway for NATO winter training exercises since the 1980s and our entire military strategy was based on "Nato will protect us if Putin invades" you are not wrong.
What changed was USA having people like Trump and the Republican party talk about not protecting NATO countries anymore. It made us realize that we can't continue to count on US help as the premise is based on the US having absolute control of the nuclear weapons, but loading them on NATO ally dual capable airplanes to launch the nukes.
If Europe is not convinced that the US will not share the nukes as agreed, then Europe has to actually rearm and might even casue a nuclear proliferation with France and UK restarting their nuclear programs.
so yeah it changes and not changes the geopolitics.
4 replies
3h43m
France and Germany rearming… what a great idea!
1 replies
3h31m
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.
0 replies
2h7m
There were actually three distinct invasions - Crimea in early 2014, Donbas in summer/autumn 2014 (after the rebels started losing), and finally 2022.
0 replies
2h41m
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.
0 replies
3h30m
This is why Sholtz and Marcon are having a bit of a public disagreement. Germany really do not want to send soldiers to Ukraine. For a whole lot of internal very German reasons their military is not in a good position for armed conflict.
I recommend this video on French defence strategy https://youtu.be/n5eUh3_eo9E?si=k19OmbQiGVdw2LXB
And this one on Germany's very cumbersome procurement tgat is part of why Germany is not keen on rearmament (apart from the obvious: they know what they did) https://youtu.be/8jDUVtUA7rg?si=Du6Rrq2TolbIIaw5
that said Macron is at the moment the only European leader outside of the Baltics that is keen on sending people to Ukraine.
2 replies
3h49m
EU is economical/societal effort (or war prevention), NATO is military (and doesn't prevent members from fighting, ie Greece vs Turkey). Ever heard of actual EU army? Doesn't exist out there in the world, maybe on paper.
0 replies
2h35m
The treaty of Lisbon has a mutual defence clause.
Membership of NATO also guarantees help from US and other non-EU NATO members of course.
0 replies
3h19m
Ever heard of actual EU army?
Well, there's Eurocorps for the last few decades, but that's not an army, just a corps-level HQ unit under which component-state forces can be slotted.
OTOH, that's not a particularly poor model for a fairly loose multi-state federation.
On the other other hand, its not actually an EU force, its a force of a particular group of EU states that is made available to both the EU and NATO, and has conducted operations on behalf of each.
1 replies
3h35m
The EU is not a military alliance, NATO is. There is a substantial difference between countries being in the EU only and being in NATO (either only or along with the EU.)
0 replies
2h43m
EU is technically a military alliance (article 42). Just not as strong as NATO.
0 replies
3h56m
Of course it does. Sweden and Finland being members of the EU had absolutely 0 bearing on the US getting involved in a war with Russia. Do you honestly think Russia would've tried to invade Ukraine if they were NATO members?
5 replies
4h10m
The most significant change is that any attack on Sweden would require other NATO countries to come to Sweden's defence, and vice versa.
It means that Sweden would also take part in more joint training exercises, share more intelligence, etc. with other NATO members.
3 replies
3h55m
Surprised I had to scroll down to see this. Collective defense means expanded nuclear umbrella from the nuke powers in NATO. TFCMA/WP/Russian doctrine has always allowed a free hand for local commanders to use tactical weapons - a very tempting option to deal with Sweden[1] in the event of a Baltic/Kaliningrad land grab. Admission to NATO is a barrier to that, since the West doesn't exactly believe in small bites when it comes to nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapon usage against member states would very likely have a strategic response.
[1] And Finland, which is also coming over.
2 replies
3h44m
You mean the USA will launch nuclear missiles on Moscow in case Russia launches a missile on Stockholm?
NATO or not, I have my doubts here. Does anyone believe any sane US president would risk a destruction of the USA to revenge / protect Sweden?
0 replies
3h34m
Failing to respond would invite salami-slicing tactics.
0 replies
2h1m
Likely not on Moscow, but on some city similar in size to Stockholm.
It's of course unclear what would happen, but I don't think Russian strategy can rely on US not responding.
0 replies
3h51m
To be precise Article 5 requires the countries to consider an attack on Sweden to be an attack on them, and they shall respond as they see fit.
In an actual attack, they may see fit to do nothing - it will come down to the circumstances.
In other words, if Russia attacks Sweden and the US decides to ignore it, there's not much NATO can do but kick the US out.
5 replies
3h56m
Sweden joining means they have lost the Baltic Sea as the only entrance is now controlled by two NATO countries. Finland Joining has helped lock down the Baltic sea but most importantly is a staging ground for cutting logistics to the largest military complex on the Kola peninsula.
This war is not just about Russias energy politics, it's also very much about their need for more maritime access. THis map shows where Russia has their ports, and now 4 important ports are pretty much neutralised. Kaliningrad, St Peterburg, and the Krimean Naval Complex are all locked in by NATO countries which means a naval blocade of Russia is very very easy and would completely render their navy's impotent. THe fourth one is on the Kola peninsula and this is why Finland is important as a staging ground to attack the railways to make the Murmansk complex isolated and within medium range missile range from Nelim and Kirkenes.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1h5ZK8Z4Ft06VV4ifg6...
THis leaves Petrapavlovsk-Kamchatskiyiv (North of Japan) and Valdivodstock (Next to North Korea) the only Free Water ports that are not affected by NATO.
Real Life lore has a gret video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
2 replies
3h29m
Interesting. You seem to know your stuff and have thought this through.
So, I was hoping to solicit your opinion on where you think Kaliningrad will be in a couple of years? (Say 5)
It probably won't be called "Koningsberg", but would you say it's probable it will become independent? Part of Lithuania, Poland? Or will it remain firmly Russian and (economically) isolated?
Curious to hear your thoughts.
1 replies
3h15m
Many [though not enough] people in K̶a̶l̶i̶n̶i̶n̶g̶r̶a̶d̶ Królewiec consider themselves more European than russian. The optimistic view is that sooner or later they'll get their way. Perhaps with putler's death they might.
0 replies
2h52m
Thank you.
That rhymes with the sentiment I gauged (anecdotally) from (West) Ukrainians, Belarusians and even some folk in St Petersburg.
0 replies
3h19m
a naval blocade of Russia is very very easy and would completely render their navy's impotent.
I think that may be okay in theory but is a bit of an over simplification for any real life scenario that deals with the wildcard dictator of Russia. Nothing is very very easy.
0 replies
3h12m
NATO is a defensive pact, if there was a NATO naval blockade there would already be war with NATO which almost certainly means escalation to nuclear war. that's my take anyway.
1 replies
3h0m
NATO doesn't have "revenue". It has a little to run offices and stuff but it is tiny. The big gain from NATO's perspective is another member and its military capacity, and the terrority. Which is a huge thing, just look at a map.
0 replies
2h58m
An anecdote about the maps: When Swedish diplomats were meeting with members of congress before the vote to convince them to admit Sweden they just brought a map. Literally just "here is a map of the baltic sea, this is why you should let us in". And it worked.
0 replies
4h13m
The super strategic island Gotland, for one.
26 replies
4h19m
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.
6 replies
4h10m
Poland defended Western Europe from a Russian invasion in 1920 and will do so again.
Reagan was the last defender of Europe (you can like him or not, having grown up in a left political climate in the 70s of Germany, I didn't), and Reforger '93 was the last time the US seriously considered defending Western Europe. It's clear that at least from Clinton on, the defense of Europe as a necessity for balancing world power was no longer on the table, "It's the economy, stupid!".
Putin will create a crisis in the baltics and invade Poland over the Suwałki Gap, gets his ass kicked, troops getting stuck, there will be negotiations and that's that. Putin couldn't get weak Ukraine (Crimea was a coup) - Russia has 3.5x times the people and 100x the money - it's funny how people in the West still believe in the Soviet Union and the Red Army, against all evidence. The best troops of the Warsaw Pact were East Germanys NVA, and losing that and all other satelite states like Poland, there is no more Red Army.
3 replies
3h45m
US has given money to Ukraine which is in Europe for many years, even before the current war, and has troops stationed in Poland and Germany and trains with a lot of European militaries (for example Finland even before it joined NATO). It is certainly possible that the US has given up on defending Europe just as anything is possible but I don't see any evidence for that. No NATO country has ever been attacked AFAIK so it doesn't seem reasonable to make such a certainly stated assertion about what would happen if that occurred, unless I am misunderstanding your point.
1 replies
3h40m
There is a huge difference between money and (dead) bodies.
0 replies
3h38m
That is very true. If by "defending Western Europe" you really meant "defending Eastern Europe with US troops" then this would be a relevant data point.
0 replies
3h32m
No NATO country has ever been attacked
The 9/11 attacks triggered article 5. It's also the only time that article has been triggered. So far...
1 replies
3h44m
It's clear that at least from Clinton on,
I think from Clinton's point of view, at least for a large portion of his term, there was no one to defend europe _from_. Russia was in shambles and retreating everywhere.
0 replies
2h42m
In hindsight we know that was wrong. However I'll fully admit that if he has assassinated Putin I would have called him out on it even though we now wish he had.
5 replies
4h15m
When, not if, and that's a good thing. I don't share your alarmist view. I think the other members of NATO will just start doing their fair share, as they should.
2 replies
4h9m
I imagine that the actual truth to the situation is far more complicated than either of us understand and that NATO provides substantial benefits to the United States.
1 replies
3h54m
NATO membership enables the US to have air bases in the UK and Turkey, Navy bases in Spain and Italy, and in other parts of Europe with overflight rights for military planes.
Most of the air traffic for the US wars in the middle east goes through Germany, and most injured soldiers go back through Germany [0] Many US soldiers survive because they get through Landstuhl.
Ramstein is also rumored to be the primary operation center for drone strikes, although the US military denies this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Cen...
0 replies
3h34m
NATO membership enables the US to have air bases in the UK and Turkey
The US has military bases in Qatar, Seychelles, and the Philippines. It's almost as if NATO membership has nothing to do with it.
0 replies
3h53m
So you'd prefer countless of people getting raped and murdered... To make the point that other countries aren't also spending ludicrous amounts of money on the military?
The lack of morals is stunning.
0 replies
4h5m
The consequences of living in a multilateral world will be very bad for the US.
Right now, the US is the leader in a unilateral world. It is absolutely naive to think that this doesn’t come with huge advantages.
4 replies
3h55m
This ridiculous hysteria serves no purpose. People said all these same things before his first election, and if anything Trump just accelerated aggression with Russia, just like every president before him and Biden after him.
1 replies
3h51m
Apologies for our Trump Derangement Syndrome. When he said that he will pull the US out of NATO and that Putin can do "whatever he wants", we will just pretend he is a comedian doing a bit.
0 replies
21m
Hysterics will spend all day talking about what a liar Trump is right up until the moment he says something he's going to do that they think is bad, then all of a sudden he's telling the absolute truth.
Trump lies, postures, hyperbolizes, boasts and self-promotes. More shamelessly than most politicians. We all know this.
Trump isn't going to pull the U.S. out of NATO. He probably couldn't, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't. He just wants to force other countries to pay more, that's all. Stop with this nonsense already.
0 replies
3h41m
Anybody who thinks a 2024 Trump term would be anything like a 2016 Trump term hasn't been paying attention.
0 replies
3h44m
John Bolton doesn't think it's hysteria.
https://lite.cnn.com/2024/02/12/politics/us-out-nato-second-...
“NATO would be in real jeopardy,” John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, agreed. “I think he would try to get out.”
4 replies
4h6m
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 replies
2h55m
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.
0 replies
47m
Really. US' *biggest* fear is a strong Germany. Really.
1 replies
4h0m
He wanted to sell US LNG. Not more and not less. Russia delivered gas to Western Europe for 60 years, the US could not guarantee LNG deliveries for 2 years [0]
Hopefully the traffic through the Panama canal goes down so Europe can still get US LNG that would otherwise end up in Asia.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-export-pause-...
0 replies
39m
And now US LNG exports to Germany are booming: ~30x (!!!) from 2022 to 2023 [1].
Seems like there wasn't a better other option anyway, was there?
Before invading Ukraine, Putin was arguably banking on the fact that he had Europe on his hands, not only for economic activity, but for survival during winter. He clearly didn't expect the way Europe responded.
Maybe the invasion wouldn't have happened in the first place if Europe would have already demonstrated strength and energy independence in the first place?
[1] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_MOVE_POE2_DCU_NUS-NGM_A.htm
0 replies
3h46m
Putin invaded Ukraine with 120,000 troops. Ask any military commander if that's enough to take a country the size of Ukraine (geographically and population wise), much less Eastern Europe?
0 replies
3h52m
Swedes would then be stupid to join nato knowing that Trump is more likely to win, and swedes are not stupid. The US foreign policy seems to have a continuity regardless of president or rhetoric-du-jour. Just look at china
0 replies
3h38m
Putin isn't even going to take Ukraine.
So how's he going to reign free over all of Eastern Europe?
24 replies
4h9m
Does being in NATO obligate you to respond militarily if another member is attacked (as is commonly believed)? I failed to find this clause in the text last time I looked.
Edit: for everyone telling me to read article 5: I already have, hence this question. It says each member "will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary". That very much doesn't appear to obligate a military response, or any response at all.
To put it another way, the treaty really doesn't seem to mean much, so far as I can tell? Countries could already help each other out (or not) anyway... no?
14 replies
4h2m
Did you actually take a look at the text of the treaty? It's very short and readable. Article 5 is what you're looking for.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
13 replies
3h49m
Yes? It says "will assist" and "such action as it deems necessary". That doesn't obligate them to provide a military response. What makes you believe otherwise?
12 replies
3h35m
Because no member wants to be seen as unreliable, risking their own security in the future, so everyone will in practice assist in any way they can.
11 replies
3h22m
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?
5 replies
3h11m
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 have against Russia. That's the whole point of NATO.
3 replies
1h19m
Would you really go to war over another country at the risk of you and your country getting nuked?
2 replies
1h13m
Yes.. ? Russia already and continuously threatening other countries, the US included
1 replies
1h6m
Can you convince the US population of that so that they'd be willing to risk their lives in a nuclear war?
0 replies
37m
The US population doesn't need to be convinced. Only the stakeholders of the MIC need convincing that their NW will go up.
0 replies
1h42m
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".
1 replies
3h0m
If the US didn't then NATO is effectively toothless, if the US did then Russia would be destroyed. I'm sure lots of officials in Moscow have spent a lot of time thinking about it.
0 replies
2h50m
if the US did then Russia would be destroyed
So would a lot of the US. I'm not sure Americans would want to die over this.
0 replies
1h29m
Capitalist US would never let such a big market go east without a fight.
0 replies
2h32m
The risk is not getting involved. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, destroying the credibility of that deterrent would destroy the rationale for NATO.
To say nothing of the fact that it'd just be an invite to Russia to invade more countries.
The seeds of WWII were sown by the appeasement of Hitler, which merely emboldened him.
0 replies
2h43m
Yes.
1 replies
3h45m
Only if they ask. If you've got it handled, you don't need to invoke article 5.
0 replies
3h40m
Even if they ask, it seems to me you get to decide how you want to get involved (if at all).
1 replies
3h54m
It doesn't obligate members to respond militarily, it obligates NATO members to consider an attack against a member as an attack against them. Retaliation and any other action needs to be discussed by NATO members and can also be vetoed.
A lot of people seem to think that if article 5 is brandished, war will result, it absolutely depends on what the council will agree upon.
0 replies
1h59m
While Article 5 is important, its not in a "technical legal mandate" way, and there is a lot more to the alliance than Article 5, there's integrated military command, training, defense strategy, forward deployments to threatened countries, etc.
And there is Article 4 collective regional security, which has ultimately resulted in more NATO combat operations than Article 5, which has been invoked exactly once, even though the former has even less explicit obligation than Article 5.
0 replies
3h55m
Thanks for asking this question. In reading the links to Article 5 I discovered that Ireland is not a member of NATO in an attempt to have a Swiss type of military neutrality.
0 replies
2h41m
NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11, BTW.
0 replies
4h3m
0 replies
4h5m
Yes - Article 5 - the absolutely key piece of NATO.
0 replies
21m
Lawfare had an interesting discussion recently: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-how...
17 replies
4h40m
Looking at the flag colours I cannot but think that Sweden is paving the way for Ukraine's membership.
16 replies
4h12m
I know Ukraine will not and cannot do this, but writing off it's East and Crimea would enable NATO membership and EU ascension.
6 replies
3h43m
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 territory, over and over, indefinitely.
3 replies
3h36m
Putin is attacking Ukraine as hard as he can. We don't need to worry about provoking more aggression out of him.
2 replies
3h33m
That seems like a non-sequitur, did you intend to reply to a different comment/thread?
1 replies
3h25m
No, I'm responding to your last sentence.
0 replies
1h19m
I still don't understand why you think I'm "worried" about someone "provoking" Putin.
If anything it's the opposite: There's no point trying to avoid provoking Putin because he's a dishonest actor and has/will feign a grievance for any reason that benefits him. Conciliatory gestures won't be reciprocated.
0 replies
2h53m
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.
0 replies
3h4m
I think it's a matter of changing the rules, just like Russia does so freely, I think it's about time NATO does the same thing.
Even if that meant that NATO would be in direct conflict with Russia, then it would be solved between NATO and Russia.
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 territory, over and over, indefinitely.
If sovereign countries' security depends on what delusional dictators write on a piece of paper, then this isn't much of a world worth living in.
Long story short, Putin can claim whatever it wants, in the eyes of the UN, Ukraine has its 1991 borders and that's where they should remain no matter what - even if it means a direct conflict with NATO. Enough with this bluff bullsht.
Are Russians, who live in one of the largest countries in the world filled with resources, going to commit collective suicide because of Ukraine?
4 replies
3h9m
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 was, any NATO rule can be changed, either in a general way or to add a sui generis exception, by the same group -- all NATO members agreeing together -- required to admit a new member under the existing rule, so the rule would not actually be an additional barrier.)
"But," you might object, "even if there is not a rule preventing it, Ukraine joining while the Russian invasion continues would be impractical because it would immediately trigger Article 5, as long as Russian forces were engaging Ukrainian forces anywhere in the country, or even occupying any part of the country."
That could be managed, though, by admitting Ukraine while adopting either a general (for later review) or temporary with explicit time limits or other terminating conditions exclusion of some parts of its territory from Article 5 (not all the territory of all NATO members is covered by Article 5 now.)
1 replies
2h53m
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?
0 replies
2h42m
What practical difference would joining NATO make in the short term though?
Depends on the terms.
If, say, Article 5 excluded defined territories whose control was actively contested at the time or which were occupied by Russia with an explicit time limit, and applied fully to the rest of the country (including places Russia likes to lob missiles but cannot yet effectively contest for control of), that would pretty substantially change the Russian calculus of the war.
And especially if it also came with the kind of forward deployment (to the covered part of Ukraine) of NATO troops made to other eastern-flank countries, it would free up Ukrainian forces to deal with the contested and currently-occupied areas.
0 replies
2h32m
The entire purpose of joining NATO is to defend against russian imperialism (Something Sweden has a ton experience with, for hundreds of years) Always has been. There is not much point in joining if you exclude that bit.
0 replies
2h53m
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.
1 replies
4h3m
All indications suggest that Russia also wants Odessa and the rest of the black sea coastline, which would probably never be acceptable even with NATO membership.
0 replies
2h5m
Russia will take Odessa and the rest of the black sea coastline.
0 replies
3h53m
Even if they did, NATO can't accept new members that are in active conflict. Putin doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country, real ethnic group, or real culture. Ukraine could give up those entire regions and Russia would not be satisfied, only pushing the war front farther up closer to the West. The war could be smaller at that point, but it would still be active, and Putin/Russia would make sure that they conflict were hot enough to not allow membership.
0 replies
4h2m
That would require Russia to back off, which they of course wouldn't do.
10 replies
4h5m
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.
2 replies
3h50m
The only way that would happen, is if a NATO member was attacked first, on a territory in the North Atlantic. A NATO member who goes off on their own and starts a war isn't entitled to calling NATO to its defense.
0 replies
3h32m
False flags are possible though, wouldn’t be the first time a war is started based on lies
0 replies
2h34m
Oh yeah, I forgot, NATO is a defense alliance.
1 replies
3h52m
Didn't Sweden already have boots on the ground in Afghanistan as a NATO partner country? They've been in PfP since 1994.
0 replies
3h36m
In Afghanistan yes. Sweden has also been in Mali with France, presumably for strategic "partnership and networking" reasons (because it was pre-NATO).
0 replies
3h54m
Germany and France, both NATO members, did bot participate in the Iraq war. Also NATO itself did not as there was no consensus among the members to be involved.
In Afghanistan there was the necessary consensus (and Article 5 was invoked) so NATO took an active role and ran ISAF - to which Sweden contributed quite significant troops.
0 replies
3h57m
NATO countries only have to react if other member countries are attacked. NATO did not participate in Iraq; some members did but as a coalition they did not. They did participate in some operations in Afghanistan post-911 however, because that was a direct attack on a NATO member. Also saying the US or NATO are remotely similar to Putin is both-sides-ing nonsense.
0 replies
2h26m
It's important to remember that NATO wasn't involved in the invasion of Iraq. That was a US/UK invasion, with a small contribution from Poland and Australia.
0 replies
3h22m
NATO is a defence alliance, how are you going to spin that into invading a country like Iraq?
We can also leave NATO if it somehow transforms into Putin.
0 replies
4h1m
Well Sweden could later leave the alliance if it no longer fit its interests. I doubt they would leave just to get out of being "dragged into another Iraq-like war" since well supporting your allies is the whole point of NATO, but if the US or the rest of NATO took the place of Putin, then maybe Sweden really would leave the alliance.
edit: Also wasn't article 5 invoked by the US against Afghanistan and not Iraq? (Maybe I'm not remembering right.)
10 replies
3h50m
This is actually very significant, this time NATO expands to the west, and who knows where next.
I wonder what was the debate in Sweden all this time (beyond the waiting for some dictators to give them the final approval)
6 replies
3h5m
There was practically no debate this time. Not because everyone was on board, but because any debate was basically suppressed.
There was some debate in the past couple of decades however.
4 replies
2h50m
There was no debate because everyone was on board. I'm so sick and tired about people lying about this online. There was an election! And many, many polls! ALL OF THEM SHOWED LIKE 80% SUPPORT!
But the anti-Nato people are butthurt and feel the need to rewrite history to foreigners.
Din jävla fjant.
3 replies
2h13m
Needless insult. Why are you so angry?
I'm not against Sweden joining NATO because Sweden was practically already a member, but without a vote at the table; the military has been running on NATO standards since the 90s. Joint NATO exercises galore, so Sweden could just as well make it official.
The fact remains that there was no public debate though (something I think is very valuable, even if I may have one standpoint on a particular issue), much less a referendum, which I think a major decision like this should require.
Sweden joining NATO or not was not a coherent election issue, and the biggest single party was undecided and held their internal debate completely behind locked doors.
Random polls, be they online or via phone, are basically worthless; you know that as well as I. But hey, let's go with those numbers. Don't you think the remaining 20% should be heard, even if you don't agree with their stance?
1 replies
59m
"NATO standards" is a meaningless technicality. NATO is more like a political suicide pact. The parade troops are just a side show. There is no public meta-discussion about the issue at all except among greens and socialists.
Try talking to some good friends about the prospect of actually fighting in a war. The difference between the public facade of the elite pretending stuff and my "experienced reality" is psychosis inducing. The cheering in this thread is really suspicious. It's one of those things that only seems to exist on the internets.
I got this feeling that the elite just waited for the right moment to push for joining NATO. They have been wanting this for a long time.
0 replies
52m
the elite just waited for the right moment to push for joining NATO. They have been wanting this for a long time.
Without a doubt. It was definitely railroaded.
0 replies
1h18m
Random polls, be they online or via phone, are basically worthless; you know that as well as I.
This claim is so easy to debunk that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.
0 replies
1h34m
We have representative democracy in Sweden and something like 88% of representatives wanted Sweden to join NATO. There were debates but it gets a bit pointless when such a huge majority agree on it.
In what forum would you want to see more debates on the topic? Hearing a debate between two guys who wants the same thing seems pointless.
1 replies
3h14m
It's time for the USA to step out of NATO. Will surely happen when Trump comes to power.
0 replies
2h56m
Extraordinary opinions call for elaboration.
0 replies
2h32m
There was almost no debate. The elite made it a fait accompli and labeled nay sayers as traitors.
There is this major pretend that they have popular backing of joining NATO eventhough the sentiment against it is really strong. There was some demands for a referendum, but it was shut down in fear of "fake news" etc.
9 replies
4h20m
Here's hoping this means they can send Gripen, finally.
7 replies
4h8m
Sure. The US Military Industrial Complex loves to share.
6 replies
4h5m
What does Gripen have to do with the US military industrial complex? The US isn't the ones sending F-16s anyway.
5 replies
3h41m
The parent comment is referring to the US pressuring all European NATO members to abandon plans to acquire Saab or Dassault jets in favour of its own F35.
3 replies
2h59m
The F-35 is better and cheaper than Gripen or Rafale. Everyone who can buy F-35 is doing so. There were countries that switched when allowed to buy F-35.
The Gripen's problem is that it is expensive for a light fighter. The other problem is that uses an American engine and US can control export. There aren't many countries that can't buy F-35 but can buy Gripen. Brazil is the big one.
The French Rafale is having more success because it isn't export limited. It is better than Gripen and same price.
1 replies
2h40m
The Rafale is cheaper than the F35, by a wide margin.
0 replies
2h34m
It is not. A brand new F-35A costs a bit over 70 million. A new Rafale costs a bit over 100 million.
In terms of operating costs, yes the Rafale is cheaper, mostly because it's not stealth.
The fact that France is spending their money in France helps make up the difference - for France. But if you aren't France, the F-35 is a good deal.
0 replies
2h35m
Sweden's problem is that we insist on only selling to the "good guys" (for domestic policy reasons), but everyone who is considered a good guy (e.g. Norway) is already in the F-35 program. So we sell to no-so-good-but-not-terrible guys like Brazil, South Africa, Hungary and Thailand.
0 replies
3h34m
Ah, so mythology.
Most of the European nations with F-35 currently either joined the program from the beginning decades ago, or want to participate in nuclear deterrent and have no other option (unless France decides to share their nukes, but that hasn't happened yet, and you can bet they'll want you to buy Rafale for the privilege if they do), or want stealth capabilities which nobody else can offer right now, or want greater compatibility with the US munitions stockpile which is vastly larger than what Europe has available... etc.
Jets take a long time to develop, the time for Europe to get serious about "strategic autonomy" in that respect was 2 decades ago. That didn't happen, so now the F-35 is the only option if they want the capability to penetrate Russian ground-based air defenses and consistently beat the Su-57 (cough all 8 of them, but it's possible they scale up eventually).
0 replies
1h53m
To ukraine? I thought the idea was that Ukrainian pilots would be trained on f16s instead because the stockpiles of those are many times bigger?
7 replies
3h4m
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.
5 replies
2h20m
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?
1 replies
1h44m
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.
0 replies
1h26m
Interesting take. What do you think we will see in Europe the next 5-15 years?
1 replies
1h57m
While Secretary General, Ismay is also credited as having been the first person to say that the purpose of NATO was "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," a saying that has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO
0 replies
16m
the irony is that NATO is pushing Germany to aggressively and quickly re-arm
if NATO wants America in then they need to do something about an angry orange political candidate...
0 replies
1h52m
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 Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.
The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
0 replies
2h24m
Well, good luck defending each other from Sarmat!
7 replies
4h45m
Finally. I'm going to celebrate by opening a bottle of red wine from Ukraine, seems fitting.
5 replies
4h19m
I was about to say that it'd beat a bottle of wine from Sweden, anyway, but felt the need to fact-check my joke, and apparently Swedish wine is a thing!
4 replies
3h42m
There’s a little wine country just off of Lake Superior. The water buffers the temperatures enough to keep grapes happy.
I know the Baltic is probably colder than Lake Superior, but it sounds like it works anyway.
3 replies
2h15m
Looking at the weather averages for Duluth (chosen at random), no, that actually looks probably colder than the heavily populated bits of Sweden, certainly in the winter.
2 replies
1h53m
The wine region is the little corner of Michigan just north of Indiana. They also do apples and cheese. I’m not sure how far north the region extends, but I’ve been there a few times. So that’s quite a bit farther south than the Swedish peninsula.
1 replies
34m
So, _London_ is further north than anywhere in the contiguous United States. But obviously much warmer than a lot of it, particularly in winter (London rarely gets far below 0 Celsius). Latitude very much isn’t everything.
0 replies
13m
Yeah the ocean does a lot.
If you look at the prevailing winds off of the eastern atlantic, it looks a lot like Southern Sweden gets the same air that London does. Plus there's a couple of considerable lakes along that path, so grapes do seem plausible.
0 replies
24m
Try their beer. Obolon is good stuff.
6 replies
3h35m
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 benefit. Ukraine falls into that category.
1 replies
3h18m
You do realize that Russia invading a peaceful country that was turning more towards democracy and away from dictatorships like Russia is what pushed Sweden and Finland into NATO, in fear of Russia invading and terror bombing them?
Not protecting yourself, and letting Russia do whatever they want, is what countries did to Nazi Germany for years. Have we learned nothing from history?
0 replies
3h6m
Russia being bad does not make Nato good. Just like Nato being bad does not make Russia good.
1 replies
3h18m
counterbalance alliance
Russia had that in CSTO.
After Russia ignored Armenia’s request for help, it’s worthless.
And Russia has already created entrenched conflicts in a number of countries for exactly that reason.
0 replies
2h17m
"Armenia’s request for help"
Nothing threatened Armenia itself and CSTO is a defensive alliance.
"Russia has already created entrenched conflicts in a number of countries"
Russia? For example, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has a very long history -- you might have heard about the genocide of Armenians by Turks.
0 replies
3h31m
US is literally sending weapons to the perpetrators of a genocide. Genocides do not make the world more stable, just the opposite.
0 replies
3h15m
Maybe if Russia weren't an active threat to all its neighbors, its neighbors wouldn't want to join NATO so badly.
6 replies
3h53m
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 a missile into an Israeli town we can finally invade Iran. We need to antagonize the other major powers by putting military bases in small countries all around their borders.
2 replies
3h47m
We should form an org similar to NATO but for the Pacific. Why would Taiwan join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
0 replies
3h10m
There is the American–Japanese–Korean trilateral pact signed in 2023. The US and South Korea, Philippines, and Japan have bilateral defense treaties.
The US used to have treaty with Taiwan. There was proposed NEATO in the 50s, but Korea wasn't over WW2, and Japan is defense-only in constitution.
The big problem is that signing defense treaty with Taiwan would require change to the status quo and probably kick off a war.
0 replies
3h44m
While there are a dozen+ similarly named and functioning arrangements between states, I think with NATO's current expansion the name of "North Atlantic" means less of a geographical limiter and more of a euphemism for "Western Aligned" countries.
For example, Georgia is a candidate member, and it's technically in both Asia & Europe.
0 replies
3h41m
It's a bit of a big ask to demand that slovenian soldiers to die for Taiwan , or the portuguese to kill more palestinians. international relations dont disappear by joining NATO, and the more it expands the more likely it is to increase discord.
0 replies
3h24m
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.
0 replies
3h33m
we can finally invade Iran
This is either irony or insanity. What good did the two previous US/Nato wars in the region accomplish? Very little if anything at all.
Imagine a world where the US had not sullied its international reputation by invading countries and killing hundreds of thousands.
4 replies
3h51m
Lemme be the guy who farts in the elevator. Sweden has managed to avoid entangling itself in military conflicts around the world for centuries and by joining NATO it’s got itself security but at the expense of potentially involving itself in conflicts regardless if Swedes want to be involved or not. Anyways it seems popular in Sweden but the naive lefty in me still thinks it’s a shame at the collective high-fiving
0 replies
3h34m
potentially involving itself in conflicts regardless if Swedes want to be involved or not
The Riksdag voted 269–37 to pass the NATO accession bill, and my understanding is that this is representative of the majority of the Swedish population.
Since NATO’s rules regarding military conflict are a rather conspicuous part of NATO membership, I’d hazard to say the Swedes are being quite explicit about the sort of involvement they desire.
0 replies
3h39m
Possibly.
Article 5 only says every other member "will assist" with "such action as it deems necessary"
International law is in many ways a ghost of what we think of as law. There are no enforcement mechanisms. If Sweden failed to involve itself and the USA/NATO wanted to push the point, we'd just apply trade pressure & sanctions to them. But we could and would do that same thing without Sweden being in NATO. (That's how we established the 'coalition of the willing' for the Iraq invasion, and how UN votes are organized)
0 replies
3h17m
Why should we celebrate neutrality in the face of evil? Surely Sweden would be more proud of its history if it had fought against the Nazis rather than helping them. WW2 would have been shorter as well.
0 replies
3h34m
Wikipedia would suggest that the Kingdom of Sweden has involved itself in multiple military conflicts in the past century or so, including NATO ops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Sweden#...
3 replies
2h31m
So is the world closer, farther, or the same distance from nuclear war after this?
2 replies
2h25m
It's closer to WWIII, of course. Our extinction is imminent. It's always been just a matter of time!
1 replies
2h19m
I wonder if fission will come first though.
0 replies
1h43m
Imminently. We always use the best weapons at our disposal and care less about selves or others!
2 replies
2h59m
Objectively, is this good, bad or no-impact?
1 replies
2h48m
Good. It discourages attacks from Russia, the only bellicist nation in the region.
0 replies
2h17m
Interesting. I learnt the word 'bellicist' for the first time.
2 replies
3h20m
Yeah, the expansion of NATO to the east is so successful and peaceful, best thing ever.
0 replies
3h15m
If the Russian empire didn’t expand west under the guise of communist brotherhood, then proceeded to make every aspect of life miserable to those they controlled (not talking about purely macroeconomics here), Nato would have never been invited east.
0 replies
2h46m
I wonder what made Sweden and Finland want to join NATO...
2 replies
3h54m
Being a NATO member gives a nation more security than nuclear weapons, effectively.
Nuclear states can and HAVE gone to wars - but no one wants to mess with the devastating conventional power of NATO.
After the recent gutting, Russia has a few dozen SU-34s that can fly. NATO has thousands of planes.
0 replies
2h41m
Russia has a few dozen SU-34s that can fly
And Ukraine is about to receive their F-16s
0 replies
3h21m
It also just got a lot more Gripens.
2 replies
4h8m
What happened with Turkey's opposition to this?
1 replies
4h0m
Stockholm introduced a new anti-terrorism bill that makes being a member of a terrorist organisation illegal. Sweden, Finland, Canada and the Netherlands also took steps to relax policies on arms exports to Turkey. [...] Erdogan, who had sent Sweden's bid to parliament in October, linked the ratification to U.S. approval of sales of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey.
https://www.reuters.com/world/turkey-set-approve-swedens-nat...
0 replies
2h47m
This law was a response to the terror attacks of 2017, and was mostly already done when Putin invaded. As a political thing, Sweden and Turkey informally agreed to pretend this was a concession so that Erdogan could look good for his election.
The problem was then that this lie was just a bit too credible, so people started to believe in it.
2 replies
3h53m
Why is this on Hacker News?
1 replies
3h28m
I had the same question and I don’t think I can squint enough to make this post make sense. I really enjoy coming here for the tech/hacker concentration, though I do miss the general audience topics you’d find on old Reddit. While I don’t use Reddit any more, I’m concerned that allowing general audience topics like this is a path toward diluting the best thing about HN.
0 replies
2h3m
How is this less relevant to HN than, say, tidal locking, or bird brains, or sourdough bread, or jetliners, or god forbid the Gaza conflict?
2 replies
3h29m
Irony: NATO maybe was considered of questionable necessity before Putin invaded Ukraine to supposedly contain NATO, which ended up being a gigantic ad for NATO. Now it's on track to become the de-facto EU military.
Putin is yet another fabulous counterexample for the anti-democracy crowd. He spent hundreds of thousands of Russian lives, hundreds of billions, tons of military hardware, and incurred sanctions to earn... a massive increase in the strength and prestige of one of his (again supposed) major adversaries. Not only is NATO growing but the EU is ramping up its own domestic military industries. Absolutely massive own-goal. Even if he "wins" in Ukraine to some extent it's a strategic net loss at this point.
Starting to wonder if China is going to do the same thing with Taiwan: invade and set gigantic amounts of money on fire and implode their economy. Even if they "win" the damage might far exceed the gain.
0 replies
2h41m
Is it? From the outside it looks like the Russian economy was able to withstand the biggest sanction packages the West could come up with, BRICS is gaining traction, lots of countries have lost any trust in Western banks after 300 billion of Russian assets have been seized and the EU has been exposed as a puppet of US foreign policy.
The Russians also found evidence of illegal biolabs in Ukraine and the US couldn't even fake their evidence for WMDs in Iraq. I don't know how any of this is a win for the West.
0 replies
2h52m
Absolutely massive own-goal.
never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake
2 replies
3h11m
Let's do Armenia next.
1 replies
2h52m
Not if Azeri bribes have anything to say about it
0 replies
1h55m
Ok, how about Japan then?
1 replies
3h5m
Only downside for Sweden really is that they are now recommended to spend >=2% of GDP for defense.
Otherwise, congratulations. Same as Finland, Sweden is hige NET benefit for alliance, welcome friends!
0 replies
1h37m
Swedens defense budget for 2024 is 2.1% of GDP.
I'm my view, with the recent events, Sweden would need to spend at least 2% with or without NATO. Now we can spend 2% but get a lot more value out of it.
1 replies
3h41m
why don't NATO add Russia in and together they can fight off US?
0 replies
2h44m
Probably because the US isn't making threats to invade or nuke European/NATO countries and Russia is? Just a guess.
1 replies
2h51m
The largest country on Earth murders people for merely expression an opinion and a massive chunk of our planet's geological wealth is funneled to fund wars of aggression.
This sovereign decision is in perfect alignment with Sweden's value and security needs. Yet, that the decision involved kissing the rings of other no-good men (Erdogan and Orban) tells me we need a paradigm shift.
Is it legal to crowdfund Putin's early retirement? I'm sure there's a number that will guarantee getting him out of office. Asking for a friend. ;-)
0 replies
19m
Is it legal to crowdfund Putin's early retirement?
The money required would be not less than a couple of orders of magnitude larger than John Oliver's offer to Clarence Thomas.
0 replies
3h27m
Private army of big capital claims another nation its hostage
0 replies
4h6m
Getting ready for WW3, I can't wait.
0 replies
2h26m
Russophobia makes people do stupid things!
0 replies
2h8m
FYI "The head of the Russian General Staff Academy announced the threat of a “large-scale war in Europe”
The state agency RIA Novosti on Thursday reported on an article by Vladimir Zarudnitsky, head of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The article was written in the departmental magazine “Military Thought” and was “at the disposal” of the agency.
The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine into a large-scale war in Europe cannot be ruled out; the likelihood of Russia being drawn into new military conflicts is increasing, the main idea of the RIA Novosti article is retold.
“The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine cannot be ruled out - from the expansion of participants in the ‘proxy forces’ used for military confrontation with Russia to a large-scale war in Europe,” wrote General Zarudnitsky.
“The main source of military threats to our state is the anti-Russian policy of the United States and its allies, waging a new type of hybrid war in order to completely weaken Russia, limit its sovereignty and destroy territorial integrity,” the general was quoted by Reuters, which also noted that a high-ranking A Russian military officer warned of the threat of the conflict in Ukraine escalating into a full-scale war in Europe.
Zarudnitsky's comments come as the West struggles to help Ukraine with more weapons and money after a failed counteroffensive, Reuters noted."
0 replies
3h44m
Du gamla, Du fria!
0 replies
3h32m
Great War vibes.
0 replies
3h58m
Great, now they help pay for this mess!
How does NATO benefit?
A bigger alliance is harder to defeat in war.
Also, a bigger alliance requires each member to contribute fewer troops to manage a common defense.
Sweden is a fairly wealthy country that can contribute the required amount to NATO.
Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict.
Finally, Sweden does not bring any new potential conflicts/enemies with it.
But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend.
For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen.
It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.
Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
1 That was not an Article 5 thing,
2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?
3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.
And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe"
Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor
NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.
That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.
The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade).
In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.
the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.
NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action.
NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.
NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.
NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.
I understand what you say is true in theory, but does this mean the US will deploy fewer troops in NATO theaters, in practice?
IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland. Many NATO countries will have sizeable factions of their electorate saying to not get involved.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.
Yep, Putin will absolutely try to grab new land whenever he thinks he can get away with it, no matter how many young Russian men die in the process. To him it's just a game to fulfill his fantasies of being a great conquering czar, and for that reason credibility of NATO's article 5 is vital.
Even the good relations between EU and Russia pre-2014 were just theater on Russia's part. Here in Finland during those years shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. They have never acted in good faith.
AFAICT this topic has been mostly avoided by the Finnish media. I guess everyone just kinda trusts that the government is on top of the situation.
There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.
I think Putin would not invade Poland, it's just as strong or even stronger than Ukraine, with less corruption, better economy and defense treaties.
Baltics have always been the biggest risk. They are very small population-wise and can be "easily" cut off (Suwalki gap). But the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance will significantly improve the defense posture (airfields, maritime logistics).
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.
Things are looking up for NATO!
Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.
Congress blocked his ability to do that without their approval: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/...
EDIT: since other commenters don't know, yes it was signed into law, Sec 1250A of the 2024 NDAA:
They made it illegal for him to do so, but Trump has made it clear that he does not view himself as accountable to the law, especially for any acts while President, so...
If the commander in chief says that Russia can do 'whatever the hell they want' with NATO countries, it doesn't really matter if the US is still officially in NATO.
I'm too lazy to look this up. Can he do that?
Maybe. Countries can leave the treaty. Congress and the Senate are trying to make it impossible for the president to unilaterally do this, but I don't know if that bill has passed yet. It's a bipartisan effort believe it or not, because even the most politic Republicans are not stupid. I expect it should pass before January 2025.
But who knows, maybe he can sabotage the alliance in other ways, or find some other way out.
How? Norway (long a member) has Arctic ports, Sweden does not touch the Arctic.
Indeed. Plus Finland is already in the club, and they're def. on the arctic.
The cold war was the largest project undertaken by any civilization in human history in terms of spending. With Sweden on board with NATO, defence contractors and other NATO adjacent public private partnerships can be assured that they won't interfere with that flow of funds.
We did get the Internet, space programs, satellite-based sensing, phased array radar, MAD theory, and some other stuff out of the spending.
And it costed us 100x more than if we just put the money into science directly! YAY!
:) Politics decides funding allocation in a democracy.
And it's a lot easier to justify military spending than it is research.
Same reason NASA is the way it is, but we still have a space program.
see: Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility & Desirability of Peace.
Sweden has a pretty advanced and self-sufficient defense industry for its size.
Examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diamet...
PS: Not sure why parent is getting down voted for asking a neutral question. Curiosity!
Phrasing of that question is a classic bait for flame wars.
It's a simple interrogative sentence.
At some point {subject} {verb} is just {subject} {verb}.
And given the abnormally terse formulation, I'd expect GP was explicitly trying to decolor their interrogative.
Not a diverse group of readers, as one would suggest.
Guaranteed access to Ikea furniture in times of war.
And delicious meatballs for the troops
It isn't hard to make better meatballs than what Ikea sells. For that matter if you think Ikea furniture is good you have no idea what good really is.
Good for the price Mr. Disingenuous
Sweden has a pretty solid defense industry. Gripens and NLAWs for example are Swedish production.
Correction: NLAWs are only Swedish designed(SAAB defense) but are production of Thales(a French company) manufactured in Belfast, Northern Ireland(UK), using warheads made by a subsidiary of SAAB in Switzerland.
Yes, I'm fun at parties.
He he, my response to the sorts of people that use the "I bet you're fun at parties" jibe is usually "we go to different parties".
Indeed, for a small country in terms of population, they have a really impressive defense industry.
Also a very interesting distributed defense doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
It's easier to defend Denmark, Norway and Finland if Sweden is not in the way. With this, Sweden is more likely to become completely "open" to NATO operations in any conflict that involves defending those three NATO members.
I think it has a more significant impact on the Baltics which have been an Achilles heel of NATO.
Sweden and denmark control access to the baltic sea.
I've always wondered what is the reality of passage of Russian nuke subs thru the Skagerrak.
Tidal flows. Hull detection. Passage protocols.
We have a permanent aircraft carrier in the Baltic.
Did you mean the strategically located island of Gotland, which has been called an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"?
By having to jump through fewer hoops to get the intelligence they already got before, and likely further restricting the field of operation for Russian forces in that area.
Sweden joining ends the problematic area of the Suwalki gap as a pinch point between Kaliningrad and Belarus.
It also means NATO controls the Baltic Sea completely.
NATO is two things.
A defense pact, in case shit hits the fan.
A deterrence, to make war too difficult to undertake.
Adding additional countries around the edge of NATO does two things for the countries currently in the pact, even if they aren't economic or military powerhouses. First, those countries are less likely to be attacked, and not having your neighbors be embroiled in war is good. Germany is much happier if there is no land war going on next door in Poland, bombs occasionally falling on the wrong side of the border, civilian refugees looking to them for safety.
Second, adding someone else to the pact puts someone else on the front lines to test the defense provided by the pact, if shit hits the fan. Sure, if Russia wanted to, they could try to bypass Poland on the way to Germany, but practically speaking with Poland in NATO, Germany will get to see how NATO responds to an invasion of Poland, rather than finding out how they respond to an invasion of Germany. Poland, likewise, would be much happier seeing how NATO responded to the invasion of Ukraine-the-NATO-member, rather than watching the invasion of Ukraine and wondering how NATO will respond to the invasion of Poland if Ukraine falls.
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.
More territory coverage, especially coastal areas of the Baltic Sea. With Finland in there too, it's a NATO lake for sure.
Of course, Sweden was already a member of the EU and a NATO partner, so it's not a huge difference in practice.
Don't forget the contribution and sacrifice of Ukraine
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 war - its a perfect name I'll keep repeating till it sticks around, or I'll die trying.
Its relatively personal to me, my home country (former Czechoslovakia) was basically enslaved by russian cough cough soviet forces for decades, people shot or electrocuted when trying to escape (around 500 recorded officially), tens of thousands murdered in other indirect ways (gulags or uranium mines with no ticket back, or just beaten to death in some cold dungeon). I see basically 0 change from that russia to modern one and how it values things like human life, freedom etc.
It looked briefly better, much better, but those times are over for good and russia is firmly back at cold/not so cold war with whole western world. Currently trying to subvert quite a few places in Africa. I hope western 3-letter agencies are few steps ahead.
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.)
To be clear, Turkey has been undergoing pretty decisive democratic backsliding since the mid 2000s. It was added to NATO at the same time as Greece, and at that time, Turkey was the more democratic of the two countries (see, e.g., the electoral democracy index for 1952 on https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ ).
edit: note if you're trying to find Turkey by searching on that site, it uses the endonym Türkiye
Türkiye is probably the first western country to not secure its demographic dividends, with maybe Greece (hard to say because the EU mess things up with free movement of people and stuff). It did not fail hopefully, but the infrastructure gains are small compared to even ex-USSR countries. I fear the same is happening in slow motion in India (we'll see in 15 years i guess).
In 1951, when Turkey joined NATO, the country was not actually all that dictator-like.
In the US, only wingnuts and "useful idiots" (really the same group) are repeating this talking point.
Mearshiemer got quite a favourable hearing on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30559136
I really never understood how this statement and "NATO expanded to aggressively" were seen as contradictory. Putin's government wants to put the boot on Russia's neighbors, and NATO was in the process of taking that option away from them, and that's why they committed to war. They're not lying about their motivations, they are phrasing them in head-of-state speak. The same goes for denazification, which is thinly veiled code for intervening in who's allowed to govern Ukraine.
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?
For more understanding of this difference in Russian mindset, see this thread from Kamil Galeev, a Russian independent researcher: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1761855753290191129
Orban and his team don't work for Hungary. They work for themselves (for a small group around Orban's family), trying to take out as much money and power from every opportunity as they can. This might explain purchasing the gas on higher price (and a huge amount of other controversial deals) and preferring partnerships with corrupt governments and politicians. It's all about business and power.
There are good meticulously researched articles about their businesses here (one of the few remaining independent, reliable sources in Hungary): https://www.direkt36.hu/en/
The 'Empire' podcast ran a series about Russia: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/empire/id1639561921
It is clear from listening to the podcast that Russia has always been nightmare to live in (unless you perhaps belonged to a tiny elite) or have as a neighbour. Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861.
Blackmailing by Orban and his party, not Hungary.
Fair enough, but he's been in power for 18 years (1998-2002, 2010-present). He couldn't do that without widespread and lasting support.
No, people supported them, but that is because democracy was hacked. Hungary is not a democracy anymore (it's a hibrid regime[1]).
The biggest issue is that the majority of the media is controlled by the government. Also they own jurisdiction and have been gradually rewritten the constitution. Most people who support this regime do that because they believe the propaganda. Many people I know have been bitterly trying to tell their family members that they are watching / listening propaganda (unsuccessfully, for years). Most of Orban's supporters don't know much about politics, they just want to live their lives, so they believe whatever is on TV, radio, online media, posters, etc. For many it is very hard to see what is true and what is lie.
But there are many, many people here who don't like this and want a change. The country is in a state where positive change towards democracy is really hard at the moment, many of us still want to believe it is possible.
By the way, we could see this madness around the world in the past years: Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro… many people can be led by their nose. Not just in Hungary. I really whish if people would learn from Hungary's mistakes, and don't let the same thing to happen in their countries.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_regime
Or maybe people just agree with this politics. Clearly, you and your source of information don't.
Do you mean, some people just consciously agree with being used and lied to and their taxes being stolen so that the leaders can be richer and more powerful while schooling, health care and economy is in decay? I don't think so.
That's not an indicator of support, look at Lukashenko, dictator of Belarus.
A country that is not in a civil war that has majority support owns the crimes it runs on.
When Fidesz won their first election in 2010, they changed voting laws and even the constitution; now elections in Hungary are heavily gerrymandered and Fidesz routinely wins super-majorities with less than 50% of the votes.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/how-viktor-orban...
Nonetheless, in 2014, five center-left parties formed the Unity Alliance. One center-left party (LMP) refused to join, splitting the center-left opposition vote. This cut in half the number of constituencies that the opposition would have won that year, allowing Fidesz to capture 91 percent of the constituencies with just 45 percent of the vote. Still plagued by infighting, the opposition remained fragmented in 2018, even as it gained strength in Budapest. With 49 percent of the vote in 2018, Orbán won 86 percent of the constituencies, losing in Budapest but winning almost everywhere else. The 2014 and 2018 results showed that only a unified opposition that spanned the political spectrum could defeat Orbán’s system.
I humbly bow before the Ukraine. You are the shield that now protects the EU, and USA, Taiwan, and many others. The winter is coming, and we are ever so slowly awakening.
Ukraine is giving us (or at least the collective west) the best deal we've possibly ever given - dealing a mighty blow, hopefully the final one, to what used to be Soviet Union and its imperial ambitions. Without a single western soldier having to enter the battlefield. Indeed Ukraine may be the first ally in the long history of regimes that US has supported in their struggles since the end of WW2 that has a will and a skill to take the weapons of war that were developed to battle the commies in the first place and put them now into their intended use in killing russian invaders[nsfw] and destroying their machines of war[losses].
Now, if Ukraine were to fall, especially because US should decide that it is not in it's best interests to support them, this has a high likelihood to result in a world where Europeans now have to alone face the wounded and angry bear living next to them, and starting to arm themselves to the teeth. Historically nothing good has come from Europeans arming up, but this will also limit European countries ability, and willingness to support an ally that was, in other parts of the world. With US influence waning, this will lead to increasingly difficult situations in the middle east and Africa. Soon the willingness of US to support its other allies in Asia would be put to test in Korea. Failing to fight the good fight there, but this time with American skin in the game, then the Taiwan is likely to fall to China like a domino piece, putting an end to pax americana, and post world war 2 world order. And at least in the west, to one of the most peaceful periods in [modern] history.
If instead we will help Ukraine deal a decisive and lethal blow to a country that has terrorized its neighbors since the times immemorial, this will send a strong message to every dictator wanna-be, that the rules based world order is the one where we the free people of this planet choose to live in. In democracy, with all its flaws.
[nsfw] https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1b8f... [losses] https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/dfbcec47-7b01-400e...
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.
Source ?
https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-ukraine-here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#English_defini...
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tg00js/ukrai...
Slava Ukraini!
The exercise in team work has not been going great so far. It doesn't look like their is a path to victory in Ukraine and Europe is hesitant to commit any troops. There are some rumblings from Macron but most of Europe would prefer to send just enough weapons so Putin can't move forward and Ukraine can't push them out.
It has been going better than the last 30 years. Military cooperation in Europe broke down with the last Reforger of '93. It is great that Europe cooperates more, the view of the US public on NATO can be seen in any US TV series or Hollywood film - it does not exist.
I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. To me, it's always more of that "we'll let you guys muck about until it's totally obvious you're not going to fix it, then we'll ride in to save the day" attitude. Not saying that's accurate, but that's how it's portrayed by Hollywood
It's fairly accurate
Less accurate for a NATO that contains Sweden & Finland, though. There's no doubt those 2 have and will pull their weight.
Speaking as a Canadian, whose country doesn't.
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.
The non-US members all have different views that must reach a consensus before any action which is precisely where the machine grinds to a halt. Which means a consensus is rarely reached. Contrasting that to the US which can bring all of its might with the whims of one leader and possible brow beating of congress to agree.
In this way, NATO/UN is interchangeable from the US point of view.
There's a difference between member states pulling their weight and the org itself pulling itself together to behave as a coherent entity. If Turkey (or any member) decides to veto or drags its feet prevent any action at all from occurring, it doesn't matter. In the mean time, the aggressor is taking advantage and ransacking its way through Europe. The whole time, the individual members are waiting for the Yanks to get off their arses to unilaterally come to action. Then they can later point at how the Yanks are always doing things unilaterally and turn them into the whipping boy.
What Hollywood film that involves the US military does include NATO militaries? Rewatching SG-1, and of course it's US only.
Other than WWII films, I can't think of any Hollywood that actively promotes NATO in anything other than a joke. Even the more common cop shows, once an investigation goes international and INTERPOL has to be brought it, it's always a big sigh as if "oh boy, here's where the wheels fall off the bus" as the member agencies that make up INTERPOL are definitely looked down upon.
The flip side of this is watching European shows, and they all feel like US law enforcement is just a bunch of gung ho gun toting cowboys. Neither view is entirely accurate, nor are they inaccurate as they are just stereotypes
I don't think it was Hollywood per se but The Day After did.
Granted, a widespread problem, but, in my experience, nowhere as bad as in contemporary Germany. Why is that?
Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO nations committing troops would likely drag all of NATO into war with Russia, increasing the chance of a nuclear war. That's not something NATO wants.
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.
There's exactly one country threatening its nukes, conducting the largest war in Europe since WWII and showing no willingness to stop.
So, the question is: what do you do? Sit back and let it take whatever it wants?
Describing it as "convenient" does not make also make it any less true or accurate, which are the true metrics a framework should be evaluated by. We can't disregard frameworks just because we don't want one side to benefit, we must evaluate frameworks on whether they represent reality.
I'd be curious what details you're drawing on to make those conclusions.
Regarding #1, do you think this is the case if Ukraine, for example, gains enough traction to attack Russian border cities as a means of preventing a Russian regrouping and counter-attack? Or is the word "commit" doing a lot of heavy lifting here?
Regarding #2, I've heard two scenarios that would counter this. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they likely have an interest in further expansion. If they think NATO isn't really as committed as they claim, a nuclear exchange into someplace like Poland would prove that, as well as giving the US a plausible way to back out of NATO commitments. That's a huge win for Russia. The previous statement about Ukrainian success provides the other example. Both cases are conditional on NATO activities.
Too much in Russia depends on the West. I'm not even talking about its industrial capacity which can't even produce military equipment without foreign components.
Their children study and live in Europe and the US. Their families live in Europe. Their business interests are in Europe.
I really doubt any of them will risk a nuclear war.
They've been quite vocal about this for a long time: they will continue war until stopped. At least until they claim all/most of the former USSR territories. Some of those territories (the Baltic states) are in NATO.
That has already happened.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-drones-a9fc4dd...
So paradoxically, by NATO increasing in members, its non-MAD strength decreases.
Not really, because Sweden wasn't going to send troops to Ukraine as a NATO proxy without a defence pact anyway.
Sweden and Finland are in NATO. Leverage from turkey and Hungary is decreasing, if you haven't seen it.
Democracy may be slow, but it's still the best system.
Additionally, now support for Ukraine can increase and it should go faster.
God, I really hope it goes a lot faster...
Because NATO (for most key decisions) works by full consensus, adding new members (a process which involved Turkey and Hungary using their leverage for concessions, especially Turkey) does not substantially reduce the leverage of existing members (this is also why Russia's bid to move to the front of the line and be admitted ahead of other Easter European applicants, without a readiness process--the real root, not the fact of expansion into Eastern Europe, of Putin's resentment against NATO--was rejected.)
Depends what you call "victory". The western priority is preserving sovereign Ukraine, even if it has to concede some land. There is a path to achieve such goal.
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!
He's almost as good as the guy that killed Hitler. Really doing the world a favor.
Isn't, at least officially, Hitler the guy that killed Hitler? Or that was the joke and it flew over my head?
That is indeed the joke. Hopefully you don't get downvoted for asking a question.
It was a very well veiled one too. If not for your comment I would not have realized it. I suspect people downvoting it didn't get it either.
Some folks forget that not everyone is "terminally online" and won't get every reference and idiom.
This is just something you might learn during history lessons in school, no online-ness is needed.
I think it would be much better if people focused downvoting on comments that go against HN guidelines rather than questions or comments they disagree with.
I don't mean to kill the joke further but I think Hitler was already a dead man walking before Hitler killed Hitler, so I think his enemies (Allied Forces plus Russians) deserve most of the credit.
The Soviet Union was part of the allied forces.
I don't mean to kill the joke but I think Hitler was already dead before Hitler killed Hitler, so I think his enemies (Allied Forces plus Russians) deserve most of the credit.
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.
Of all the takes I've heard in my life, that is certainly one of them.
There’s also minerals and grain.
It's crazy how there wasn't really ANY desire to join NATO before Russia showed, once again, that you can not trust them. The full scale of Ukraine really was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sweden has been using Nato standards and running occasional exercises with Nato for a while now. They didn’t want to be officially part of it because of their unique perspective on War and Peace (see Olof Palme, sending Blue helmets in Cyprus), but there wasn’t a lack of desire to join. I’d compare it to Switzerland and the EU: the de-facto alliance is obviously beneficial, but principles have kept things separated on paper.
Finland, that’s more complicated: unlike Baltic countries and the Kaliningrad exclave, they were not in the Soviet Union. That meant a lot of pressure to remain neutral, translated until last year into “Finlandization”: a refusal to take either side. That pressure ended with the Fall of the Berlin Wall, but Finland (like Sweden) saw no reason to change their official neutral position.
When Russia started to mess with Estonia, the need to ally with Nato, in particular on cyber-defense questions, became a lot more present for everyone nearby. I suspect that Finland wanted to be ready, adopt Nato standards, training, methods, etc., and pick the right moment to join officially. Like the Baltic trio, the Russian presence looms high in the East, and I’d be surprised if there were not regular overtures and unofficial promises of support. The USA and Canada care a lot about the Arctic, and it’s not hard to count the allies there.
So, I don’t think it was a major shift—like Italy changing sides at the end of WW2. It’s more a gradual rapprochement, matching Putin’s increasingly concerning policies, that hit a very good reason to accelerate. The process has been mostly political and official. Neither Sweden nor Finland had to change guns, tactics, or radio signals.
Finland realized that Finlandization does not work any more, by observing what happened to another country that tried to Finlandize for the last 3 decades: Ukraine.
I believe they realized that a while ago, but you are definitely right that they have been looking at Ukraine and taking detailed notes.
They presumably meant in terms of popular opinion, which was always going to be de facto necessary to join (even if in the end it happened without a referendum). See the list of polls enumerated here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden%E2%80%93NATO_relations#...
The Swiss position on joining the EU follows a similar trajectory: the decision is negative, but that’s not because they think joining the alliance is a bad thing or that relations are strife, but because they thought, or think, that making things official would betray principles.
Maybe compare it to a couple who live together but aren’t married and are opposed to it because one of them sees it as an encroachment of religion.
Honestly I can understand the previous sentiment, joining would have come across as an act against Putin as that's how he always frames NATO. So keeping the status quo was fine for everyone. But then he showed he doesn't respect the status quo. Just my opinion of course.
Yeah. We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?!
Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?
There's nothing inherently wrong with an administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators – but in this instance I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the United States "put [Putin into power]", assuming you're referring to the United States' inaction after the FSB apartment bombings?
Time's Person of the Year Award is specifically scoped to not be an endorsement or celebration of the winner. Think of it more as a measure of outsized impact on the world in a given year.
I was Time's Person of the Year in 2006, all i did was get in arguments with people i didn't even know.
You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else.
No. The economic shock therapy.
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...
It is important to mention that the war in Georgia was started by Georgia - European Commission made an investigation and ruled this out. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58T4MO/
Despite that from the very first day all US media was covering it as if Russia started the war. Effectively, the US media was spreading propaganda. Why?
I think the answer is in Propaganda Model by Chomsky: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
Other notable winners include Hitler, Stalin (twice!), Khrushchev and Trump.
I don't think it's an indication that the west likes them. Even in recent times, I'm not sure it's even an indication that time magazine likes them (see Trump)