5 ms·

It is the right call for now. Joining NATO should not be a knee-jerk response, but a measured and considered thing that can wait until after the general electio

by toxik 5y ago

It is the right call for now. Joining NATO should not be a knee-jerk response, but a measured and considered thing that can wait until after the general election later this year.

gpm 5y ago
Joining NATO risks Russian attempts to retaliate, right now Russia is rather busy, seems like the ideal time if you're going to do it.
- Y-bar 5y ago
  From a military-strategic point of view? Absolutely. But this is a political decision that should not be taken in haste, every choice here has significant ramifications and allowing for a less hasty debate is a good thing in my opinion.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    This has been debated in Sweden (and Finland) for... How many decades now? Four? Five? Even longer? The last one, AFAICR. How many decades more would your "less hasty debate" take; another five or six? And when shit happens on the ground, all those decades of blathering turn out to be worthless. The correct response is not another sixty years of dithering that will at some point turn out to be equally worthless, but to get off one's indecisive arse and join NATO. The best time to do so was years ago; the second best was yesterday. The best remaining realistically achievable time is now.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Maybe NATO could start offering an easy-to-cancel 14 day free trial of their services. It seems like a loophole that you just need to attack a country that wants to join NATO before they've signed the paperwork.
  - 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
    next day missile delivery
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      I think the USA can outperform Amazon here, they can offer same-hour delivery of advanced missiles.
      - rich_sasha 5y ago
        [ ] Parcel didn’t arrive [ ] Parcel arrived damaged [X] Parcel damaged my house/city/country
  - aksss 5y ago
    Join now and we'll send you five missiles we think you'll like every month, but you have to ship them back within 30 days or we'll bill you for them. Sign up a neighboring country and get 10 free missiles!!
- Joe8Bit 5y ago
  This is much less of an issue for Sweden and Finland than other non-NATO members, as we're an EU state and article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty obligates other EU members to assist in case of military attack. So any Russian military retaliation that occurred between Sweden announcing they intended to join NATO but before they officially did would, in effect, be an attack on the whole EU block. Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO. Finally, Sweden has several bi-lateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and US. It's obviously not technically the same as being a NATO member, but many people in the Swedish defence establishment regard it as closely equivalent.
  - chernevik 5y ago
    > Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO. NATO's most important member is the US, which isn't party to these European agreements. The same escalation risks that preclude the US fighting for Ukraine would probably prevent the US from fighting for Sweden. Sweden has to join NATO to get the unambiguous commitment of the US, and to put the decision of running escalation risks on the Russian side.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Strictly speaking, EU military assets would be sufficient to defend Europe if marshalled in a unified manner.
  - anfogoat 5y ago
    Assist doesn't do it for me. I find it near impossible to believe that were Finland attacked, the Central European militaries would be doing anything different from what they're doing now. Assist would equal hand them some equipment and root for them.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      I think you serialise misinterpret the sentiment in Central Europe. Several people are already seriously considering if more intervention is necessary. However, the fear of nuclear WW3 is keeping that in check. If Putin was to attack attack Finland or Sweden it would be clear to everyone that he is going to continue further and further. Apart from that, after this war (no matter if he wins or not) the Russian military would be in no state to attack anyone except maybe moldavia. In fact there was a leaked FSB memo just two days ago, which was highly critical of the invasion and estimated that even if they win they would need 500,000 permanently in Ukraine to "keep" it. That is significantly more than half of the active military in russia.
frozenport 5y ago
Is there any downside whatsoever to joining NATO? Even military expenditure shouldn't be an issue as most countries don't actually fulfill their military spending obligations.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  You might have to join a war that you don't want to get involved in? That's a pretty big downside.
- ratg13 5y ago
  It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of being militarily neutral.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of being militarily neutral. It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of craven acquiescence to whoever is the biggest bully in the neighbourhood at the moment; a history of being rather Deutschgesinnt until about 1942-43, and of "always having been on the Allies' side in spirit!" after that. A history of selling iron ore for Krupp guns and allowing trains transporting German soldiers to and from northern Norway/Finland. And after WW2, a record-beating history of painting the holier-than-thou Sverigebilden -- the international image of Sweden -- around the world, and perhaps above all indoctrinating her own population in it. Not really a history to be all that proud of, or worth clinging on to.

by toxik 5y ago

It is the right call for now. Joining NATO should not be a knee-jerk response, but a measured and considered thing that can wait until after the general election later this year.

gpm 5y ago

Joining NATO risks Russian attempts to retaliate, right now Russia is rather busy, seems like the ideal time if you're going to do it.

Y-bar 5y ago
From a military-strategic point of view? Absolutely. But this is a political decision that should not be taken in haste, every choice here has significant ramifications and allowing for a less hasty debate is a good thing in my opinion.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  This has been debated in Sweden (and Finland) for... How many decades now? Four? Five? Even longer? The last one, AFAICR. How many decades more would your "less hasty debate" take; another five or six? And when shit happens on the ground, all those decades of blathering turn out to be worthless. The correct response is not another sixty years of dithering that will at some point turn out to be equally worthless, but to get off one's indecisive arse and join NATO. The best time to do so was years ago; the second best was yesterday. The best remaining realistically achievable time is now.
oh_sigh 5y ago
Maybe NATO could start offering an easy-to-cancel 14 day free trial of their services. It seems like a loophole that you just need to attack a country that wants to join NATO before they've signed the paperwork.
- 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
  next day missile delivery
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    I think the USA can outperform Amazon here, they can offer same-hour delivery of advanced missiles.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      [ ] Parcel didn’t arrive [ ] Parcel arrived damaged [X] Parcel damaged my house/city/country
- aksss 5y ago
  Join now and we'll send you five missiles we think you'll like every month, but you have to ship them back within 30 days or we'll bill you for them. Sign up a neighboring country and get 10 free missiles!!
Joe8Bit 5y ago
This is much less of an issue for Sweden and Finland than other non-NATO members, as we're an EU state and article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty obligates other EU members to assist in case of military attack. So any Russian military retaliation that occurred between Sweden announcing they intended to join NATO but before they officially did would, in effect, be an attack on the whole EU block. Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO. Finally, Sweden has several bi-lateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and US. It's obviously not technically the same as being a NATO member, but many people in the Swedish defence establishment regard it as closely equivalent.
- chernevik 5y ago
  > Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO. NATO's most important member is the US, which isn't party to these European agreements. The same escalation risks that preclude the US fighting for Ukraine would probably prevent the US from fighting for Sweden. Sweden has to join NATO to get the unambiguous commitment of the US, and to put the decision of running escalation risks on the Russian side.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Strictly speaking, EU military assets would be sufficient to defend Europe if marshalled in a unified manner.
- anfogoat 5y ago
  Assist doesn't do it for me. I find it near impossible to believe that were Finland attacked, the Central European militaries would be doing anything different from what they're doing now. Assist would equal hand them some equipment and root for them.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I think you serialise misinterpret the sentiment in Central Europe. Several people are already seriously considering if more intervention is necessary. However, the fear of nuclear WW3 is keeping that in check. If Putin was to attack attack Finland or Sweden it would be clear to everyone that he is going to continue further and further. Apart from that, after this war (no matter if he wins or not) the Russian military would be in no state to attack anyone except maybe moldavia. In fact there was a leaked FSB memo just two days ago, which was highly critical of the invasion and estimated that even if they win they would need 500,000 permanently in Ukraine to "keep" it. That is significantly more than half of the active military in russia.

frozenport 5y ago

Is there any downside whatsoever to joining NATO? Even military expenditure shouldn't be an issue as most countries don't actually fulfill their military spending obligations.

cycomanic 5y ago
You might have to join a war that you don't want to get involved in? That's a pretty big downside.
ratg13 5y ago
It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of being militarily neutral.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of being militarily neutral. It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of craven acquiescence to whoever is the biggest bully in the neighbourhood at the moment; a history of being rather Deutschgesinnt until about 1942-43, and of "always having been on the Allies' side in spirit!" after that. A history of selling iron ore for Krupp guns and allowing trains transporting German soldiers to and from northern Norway/Finland. And after WW2, a record-beating history of painting the holier-than-thou Sverigebilden -- the international image of Sweden -- around the world, and perhaps above all indoctrinating her own population in it. Not really a history to be all that proud of, or worth clinging on to.