24
Sweden in NATO? Maybe not
(thehill.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
24 points (68.8% liked)
World News
32043 readers
676 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Legit question. What would be the tangible benefits of joining NATO?
Security in numbers from terrorist countries like russia
I really wanna know the opinion of a citizen of Sweden, the decision is about them. Do you currently consider Russia a threat to Sweden? It seems to me that they’re depleted after invading Ukraine and more or less failing. Would NATO not intervene in a hypothetical russian invasion of Sweden because of this vote?
Would you prefer a fight like Ukraine's (even if you win), or would you rather make sure the fight never happens?
It's clear Putin doesn't care about Russians dying. They've always just thrown blood at their targets.
How many Ukrainians have described their own battlefield as a "meatgrinder"?
I’m worried at some aspects of your comment that seem xenophobic in nature. Most Russians disagree with the decision to attack Ukraine and even a dictator like Putin can’t pull the string forever without breaking it. We already saw the consequences of him having to rely on mercenaries a couple weeks ago. He had to rely on them because there are not enough people willing to fight. So russians in general aren’t some zombies or pawns, we shouldn’t look at them that way.
On the other hand, I don’t see a real risk of Russia invading Sweden, and don’t even consider NATO’s response to a Russian’s hypothetical threat of invasion to another country to be the same, so in the end, while they didn’t get to join, I think they can move on without any damage and try joining later when conditions change. They’ll still be de facto protected.
Your comment is really weird. You are arguing about something the person you are replying to didn't even say.
They didn't say most Russians agree with the war. They also didn't say Russians are zombies or pawns.
All they said was that Russian (Soviet union) leaders have a history of sacrificing their own citizens. That's an undeniable fact.
And stating that is in no way xenophobic.
In my view, the comment implies that Russia invading Sweden is a decision that falls solely on Putin’s will. How is that not something that reduce russians to pawns or zombies, or them being ok with whatever war their leader instructs? They are invisible to the commenter, and that’s disturbing to me, honestly.
Of course Putin is unable to start yet another war. He’s only partially getting away with Ukraine, and even with years of planning and propaganda, he’s struggling to stay in it, and is relying heavily in straight up mercenaries who may or may not be russian, they’re just hired assassins.
It's probably ChatGPT.
I'm xenophobic because Putin doesn't care about Russian lives?
An entire comment for you to read explaining why, but you got instatriggered and lashed out.
NATO is a defensive alliance that only defends (counterattacks) when attacked. If Sweden is not in NATO and attacked by ruzzia terrorists, they'd be supported in the same way Ukraine is being supported now. If in NATO and attacked by ruzzia, ruzzia would be instantly flattened by NATO.
So would NATO... boom goes the nuke
Incorrect.
You do understand that nuclear war is final?
Refuse ruscist terrorist extortion.
??? This wasn't my point.
Here's the deal: Putler and his orc regime are terrorists. Countries joining NATO won't change his mind on using nukes. If there were no NATO, he'd be just as likely to do it. You see? He is a terrorist, and also a coward.
What do you mean by ‘are terrorists’? That word seems so ambiguous these days. Sometimes it means they infiltrate societies and attack civilians through homemade bombs, shootings or some suicidal maniacs. Sometimes it means they’re the baddies. Sometimes it’s a slur that basically means middle eastern. The word is meaningless to me at this point, specially when used to reference a country waging actual war against a sovereign country. Not even a guerrilla kind of thing.
They’re definitely a problem and obvious aggressors, for sure the biggest threat to peace in Europe. But how do you categorize them as ‘terrorists’?
The idea was that Sweden and Finland would enter NATO togheter. Finland bordering Russia is by far the biggest argument for them and Sweden also semi borders Russia by ocean access.
This discussion was brought up early in the war when it was not clear how strong Russia was.
For me I don't see the point in joining anymore but was a bigger consideration early.
Though exiting the deal when Finland already joined would put a dent in our relations. Sad we will lose our decades of neutrality because of one dictator biting of more then they can chew, but so be it.
Thank you for a comprehensive answer, i’m a firm believer that geopolitics shouldn’t be assumed from an outsider’s perspective. I truly appreciate that you took your time to explain how this is understood by the people of Sweden instead of accusing me of things and downvoting my ass.
I agree with you in the aspect that it seems like Russia is not strong enough to pose a threat anymore, and understand how this feels like you were left out while Finland didn’t. Hopefully this decision doesn’t have a true impact in your lives and a military alliance isn’t ever needed for your safety.
From the looks of it, Sweden will try until we get in most likely. Outside of a referendums to not join I don't see us backing down from it ^^ Not sure how a referendums would go. I'd bet on a very divided 50/50 vote.
The US has been building military bases around the globe, constantly conducting military exercises and bombing arabic countries as a display of power and provocation against any nation who doesn't ally with them, eventually they will start a 3rd World War.
NATO is based on the assumption the US will win any wars it fights,despite having been defeated by Vietnam and several others. The benefit of joining NATO is "you won't get nuked the US when the war starts". Naturally the neo-libs will mention this also applies in reverse but this is in fact the nature of a world war, you can't stay neutral, you'd either ally yourself with China, North Korea and the others, or you'd ally yourself with the United States and other Nazi-sympathizing nations.
Therefore the benefit of joining NATO is securing your foothold on the winning side when WW3 happens, the downside is becoming a puppet and being required to bomb innocent civilians in Arabic nations, also probably Cuba and Venezuela when the US decides to go there.
Or, you know, a bunch of countries who agree not to invade each other. Sounds kinda nice to me. Also, to help each other if invaded… it really sounds like… a way to prevent war.
But sit there with your insane words and pretend Russia isn’t actively trying to capture a peaceful and sovereign nation.
Or, you know, a bunch of countries who agree not to invade each other. Sounds kinda nice to me. Also, to help each other if invaded… it really sounds like… a way to prevent war.
But sit there with your insane words and pretend Russia isn’t actively trying to capture a peaceful and sovereign nation.
NATO has not prevented a single war, it has only started them.
What wars did NATO start then? Don't confuse countries in NATO with NATO itself.
NATO = USA and its servants.
Honestly. How stupid do you have to be to write this? Its impossible to give credit to NATO for wars that never happened, because.. they never happened. And you somehow think that’s proof NATO doesn’t work?
Why don’t you try looking for the reduction in war and death instead? We had two world wars in a 20 year span. How many have we had in the nearly 80 years since? Totally proof NATO is a sham..
The fact that Russia has not started invading Ukraine earlier is proof that they have prevented multiple wars already.
Or, you know, a bunch of countries who agree not to invade each other. Sounds kinda nice to me. Also, to help each other if invaded… it really sounds like… a way to prevent war.
But sit there with your insane words and pretend Russia isn’t actively trying to capture a peaceful and sovereign nation.
Or, you know, a bunch of countries who agree not to invade each other. Sounds kinda nice to me. Also, to help each other if invaded… it really sounds like… a way to prevent war.
But sit there with your insane words and pretend Russia isn’t actively trying to capture a peaceful and sovereign nation.
It worked perfectly for Serbia.