4 ms·

As a Swede this makes me happy, partially because Finland shares a lot of their border with Russia and can now feel safe knowing they have the might of 30 natio

As a Swede this makes me happy, partially because Finland shares a lot of their border with Russia and can now feel safe knowing they have the might of 30 nations behind them, but also because we're now surrounded by NATO countries. So no need for us to join, right? Right?! Let's remain neutral and a free haven for political dissidents and potential refugees of the future, right?!!

mongol 4y ago
As a Swede I disgree on the strongest. What do you want to be neutral about? That time is past us. We belong in the company of European democracies that stand together against authoritarian aggressions.
bee_rider 4y ago
Nobody expects the attack from Kaliningrad!
- INTPenis 4y ago
  It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    The only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.
    - INTPenis 4y ago
      Yeah but then it's game over. I used to worry about nukes, especially with all the suicidal people in the world, but then I realized that it's not worth worrying about because there's no way out. Anyone launches a nuke and it's game over, MAD.
      - tpmx 4y ago
        It's not game over for the world if e.g. Russia nukes some remote part of Sweden/Gotland with a low yield bomb tomorrow.
        INTPenis 4y ago
        So which propaganda should we believe? The Gotland story that all pro-NATO people use today, or the MAD story from the cold war?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        tpmx 4y ago
        Perhaps not the one that the Russians and Swedish extreme leftists are peddling.
        philistine 4y ago
        Realistically, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, they would completely lose Indian and Chinese support, the last two nuclear powers currently playing nice with them. So long as something debilitating is the consequence of nuclear weapons, Russia will abstain.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Of course, I was just kidding, the buildup would be easily spotted and it would be an, uh, unpleasant environment their boats I think.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    It would be trivial to send an Iskander missile to Gotland to derail the NATO application.
    - mongol 4y ago
      You are unfortunately right. But most people don't realize that.
yeahwhatever10 4y ago
Is that how NATO is spoken about in Europe, that it is the might of 30 nations and not just the US?
- asynchronous 4y ago
  Genuinely curious about this as well
- dijit 4y ago
  Like all things such as this, it's controversial and there is no such thing as a unified vision. For some people, yes... In fact US involvement is largely a controversial topic because joining NATO, to some people and politicians, is tantamount to putting US military bases in your country. The reality is, when people talk about the benefits of NATO they will strongly lean on the fact that it's many countries in a pact together. Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    > Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative. Too bad their funding didn't match that rhetoric until after Russia was already invading Ukraine. It'll be years yet before Germany's military will be up to snuff, and outside of France, the UK, and Poland, most of the NATO armies would struggle if they encountered any resistance on-par with what the Russians are putting out. Nor are their logistics and production capable of keeping up w/ the high-intensity peer/near-peer fight that we're seeing in UKR.
    - dijit 4y ago
      2% of GDP is the recommended amount, Ukraine managed to hold them back before financial aid came to bear with around 3%. UK spends 2.2% (an all time low!), France just under 2%. These are much larger economies so expenditure is definitely greater than Ukraines in absolute terms. Are you suggesting that they should pay more? Why? Seems like the current amount is effective.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
The old joke goes that swedens ground forces are Finland and that’s why they only have an Air Force and a navy
- dralley 4y ago
  Sweden also has a hilarious(ly large) amount of armored vehicles for the size of their army.
tpmx 4y ago
> Let's remain neutral Thankfully that opinion represent a minority here in Sweden nowadays. Good riddance. The opinion on NATO vs "neutrality" after the Ukraine invasion was, to borrow a phrase from another comment in this thread, a mask off event. Also: If NATO can't ratify Sweden we need to look at other ways to develop a nuclear deterrence strategy.

mongol 4y ago

As a Swede I disgree on the strongest. What do you want to be neutral about? That time is past us. We belong in the company of European democracies that stand together against authoritarian aggressions.

bee_rider 4y ago

Nobody expects the attack from Kaliningrad!

INTPenis 4y ago
It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  The only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.
  - INTPenis 4y ago
    Yeah but then it's game over. I used to worry about nukes, especially with all the suicidal people in the world, but then I realized that it's not worth worrying about because there's no way out. Anyone launches a nuke and it's game over, MAD.
    - tpmx 4y ago
      It's not game over for the world if e.g. Russia nukes some remote part of Sweden/Gotland with a low yield bomb tomorrow.
      - INTPenis 4y ago
        So which propaganda should we believe? The Gotland story that all pro-NATO people use today, or the MAD story from the cold war?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        tpmx 4y ago
        Perhaps not the one that the Russians and Swedish extreme leftists are peddling.
      - philistine 4y ago
        Realistically, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, they would completely lose Indian and Chinese support, the last two nuclear powers currently playing nice with them. So long as something debilitating is the consequence of nuclear weapons, Russia will abstain.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Of course, I was just kidding, the buildup would be easily spotted and it would be an, uh, unpleasant environment their boats I think.
- tpmx 4y ago
  It would be trivial to send an Iskander missile to Gotland to derail the NATO application.
  - mongol 4y ago
    You are unfortunately right. But most people don't realize that.

yeahwhatever10 4y ago

Is that how NATO is spoken about in Europe, that it is the might of 30 nations and not just the US?

asynchronous 4y ago
Genuinely curious about this as well
dijit 4y ago
Like all things such as this, it's controversial and there is no such thing as a unified vision. For some people, yes... In fact US involvement is largely a controversial topic because joining NATO, to some people and politicians, is tantamount to putting US military bases in your country. The reality is, when people talk about the benefits of NATO they will strongly lean on the fact that it's many countries in a pact together. Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  > Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative. Too bad their funding didn't match that rhetoric until after Russia was already invading Ukraine. It'll be years yet before Germany's military will be up to snuff, and outside of France, the UK, and Poland, most of the NATO armies would struggle if they encountered any resistance on-par with what the Russians are putting out. Nor are their logistics and production capable of keeping up w/ the high-intensity peer/near-peer fight that we're seeing in UKR.
  - dijit 4y ago
    2% of GDP is the recommended amount, Ukraine managed to hold them back before financial aid came to bear with around 3%. UK spends 2.2% (an all time low!), France just under 2%. These are much larger economies so expenditure is definitely greater than Ukraines in absolute terms. Are you suggesting that they should pay more? Why? Seems like the current amount is effective.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

The old joke goes that swedens ground forces are Finland and that’s why they only have an Air Force and a navy

dralley 4y ago
Sweden also has a hilarious(ly large) amount of armored vehicles for the size of their army.

tpmx 4y ago

> Let's remain neutral Thankfully that opinion represent a minority here in Sweden nowadays. Good riddance. The opinion on NATO vs "neutrality" after the Ukraine invasion was, to borrow a phrase from another comment in this thread, a mask off event. Also: If NATO can't ratify Sweden we need to look at other ways to develop a nuclear deterrence strategy.