17 ms·
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.
by bilekas 3y ago
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.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoHow does NATO benefit?
- Paradigma11 3y agoSweden and Finland came as a pack so lets talk about both of them. Benefits: It completely neutralizes the Russian Baltic Fleet. The only railway line supporting Murmansk is less than 200km beyond the finnish border, which means the Nordic Fleet is also compromised. Potential disadvantages of additional members are added political instability as can be seen with Hungary and Turkey. There is little chance of this with both countries. Basically you dont defend members, you defend borders and adding Finland and Sweden to the pact makes for a far easier and better developed front. The Finns have been building bunkers and training their population for the next Russian invasion since WW2. Having Finland as a member strengthens the position of the Baltics, who are threatened by the Suwalki corridor. Basically it strengthens and stabilizes the northern border to Russia/Belarus.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- toyg 3y agoBy 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.
- Hamuko 3y agoSweden has a pretty solid defense industry. Gripens and NLAWs for example are Swedish production.
- nextos 3y agoIndeed, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoCorrection: 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.
- fennecbutt 3y agoHe 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".
- red-iron-pine 3y agoThe UK was heavily involved in the NLAW development too, IIRC. Not just made in NI but the UK provided a lot of the initial funding along with SAAB. and boy howdy do those NLAWs work.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>and boy howdy do those NLAWs work. I know. I'm always in pain when my NLAWS come to visit.
- AlbertCory 3y ago[flagged]
- kazinator 3y agoYou, you can confidently state that at that time, they had at least one train.
- AlbertCory 3y agoI guess this is a reference to the joke, "no, what we know is that there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black." Unless we disbelieve what the guy said: we do know that they have at least the concept of a tank. He didn't actually say that they had any. That would have been a conversation-ending question for me to ask him. I don't know what those sheep statisticians would say if they hadn't seen the "black sheep" themselves and had to rely on the testimony of other people. You can't only believe what you've seen for yourself. As for all the people downvoting that: lighten up. It's a joke. Welcome to NATO.
- kazinator 3y ago> I guess this is a reference to the joke ... Yes, I can confirm that it is; busted! > and had to rely on the testimony of other people The sheep joke is not about believing people's reports or not, but about what may or may not be deduced from a report, given that it is accurate and true.
- AlbertCory 3y ago> The sheep joke is not about believing people's reports or not yes, I know. I was speculating about something not part of the joke.
- RecycledEle 3y agoA 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.
- ttymck 3y agoI understand what you say is true in theory, but does this mean the US will deploy fewer troops in NATO theaters, in practice?
- MaxPengwing 3y agoNo, 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-has-pivoted-to-support-u-s-troops-since-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-... https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... But in same time European allies has also increased their NATO soldiers.
- ttymck 3y agoYes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.
- Paradigma11 3y agoThere is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.
- ethbr1 3y agoSweden 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/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb 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!
- rashthedude 3y agoNot a diverse group of readers, as one would suggest.
- johnchristopher 3y ago> 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.
- ethbr1 3y agoIt'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.
- willcipriano 3y agoThe 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.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoMore 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.
- dehrmann 3y agoWe have a permanent aircraft carrier in the Baltic.
- Findecanor 3y agoDid you mean the strategically located island of Gotland, which has been called an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"?
- guappa 3y agoSweden and denmark control access to the baltic sea.
- euroderf 3y agoI've always wondered what is the reality of passage of Russian nuke subs thru the Skagerrak. Tidal flows. Hull detection. Passage protocols.
- charles_f 3y agoGuaranteed access to Ikea furniture in times of war.
- solardev 3y agoAnd delicious meatballs for the troops
- bluGill 3y agoIt 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.
- solardev 3y agoI wonder if they're tastier than the average MRE? Sure, you can always make better food with some effort, but next to Costco chicken bakes, Ikea meatballs probably have one of the world's highest convenience-to-deliciousness ratios. As a kid, I used to loooooove spending the day at Ikea, bouncing around all the beds and hiding in the fake rooms, but mostly just because we'd end up at the food court at the end... mmmm.
- fennecbutt 3y agoGood for the price Mr. Disingenuous
- kzrdude 3y agoIt'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.
- The_Colonel 3y agoI think it has a more significant impact on the Baltics which have been an Achilles heel of NATO.
- PeterStuer 3y ago[flagged]
- TulliusCicero 3y agoAh yes, it's NATO that wants war, it's certainly not NATO countries being reasonably concerned about a certain neighbor that keeps invading neighboring democracies. I'm sure without being in NATO or the EU, Estonia and Latvia would be left completely alone and unharmed by Russia, just like Ukraine! They certainly wouldn't have been a smaller and easier target.
- ardaoweo 3y agoYes, everyone that opposes Russia's imperialist tendencies wants war. If everyone just willingly got annexed by Russia there would be peace.
- fennecbutt 3y agoSweden is a country that makes their own military related stuff: https://youtu.be/d8x8ITwd4Vg?si=ye6-_fe7EJMuqdIg 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.
- trizuz 3y ago[dead]
- scoofy 3y agoSweden 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.
- saalweachter 3y agoNATO 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.
- cactusplant7374 3y agoThe 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.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoIt 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.
- dylan604 3y ago> 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
- unmole 3y ago> Not saying that's accurate It's fairly accurate
- bryanlarsen 3y agoLess 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.
- unmole 3y ago> will pull their weight How much do they weigh in comparison to the 800lb gorilla that is the United States?
- factorialboy 3y agoDon't forget the contribution and sacrifice of Ukraine
- s_dev 3y agoOr the blackmailing by Hungary and Turkey.
- jajko 3y agoIts 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.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoThis 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.
- 3y ago
- sschueller 3y ago[flagged]
- tw04 3y agoNo? Just because Sweden is a member of NATO doesn't meant they have to just let the US do whatever they want. IF Sweden so chooses to allow US troops to be stationed there, it will be for their own benefit.
- u320 3y agoSweden hosts US troops already. There was no reason to wait for Orban and Erdogan for that.
- petschge 3y agoThere is the GAFFTC (German Air Force Flying Training Center) at Holloman AFB?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- KingOfCoders 3y agoMost (all?) of German jet fighter training happens partially in the US.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago> Why isn't there a NATO base in the US where German military etc. "hang out"? The reason there is a large US presence in Germany is that Germany lost WWII. You can make all kinds of other justifications for it like "Germany invited the US", but it all comes back to the Allies created the current German government, and all of them had troops continuously stationed in Germany from WWII until well after the cold war ended. France and the UK have withdrawn most of theirs, the US is the one that still has a sizable presence and the reason is that Germany is afraid of Russia and wants them to stay.
- miroljub 3y ago
- pandemic_region 3y agoDon'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!
- firebat45 3y agoHe's almost as good as the guy that killed Hitler. Really doing the world a favor.
- unnouinceput 3y agoIsn't, at least officially, Hitler the guy that killed Hitler? Or that was the joke and it flew over my head?
- bloopernova 3y agoThat is indeed the joke. Hopefully you don't get downvoted for asking a question.
- lostmsu 3y agoIt 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.
- bloopernova 3y agoSome folks forget that not everyone is "terminally online" and won't get every reference and idiom.
- WJW 3y agoThis is just something you might learn during history lessons in school, no online-ness is needed.
- 3y ago
- richrichie 3y ago[flagged]
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoDidn't realize it was NATO troops committing genocide in the Balkans and invading Georgia and Ukraine.
- richrichie 3y agoIt is NATO that is fighting in Ukraine. It is they who have been active in Ukraine since 2008. Without NATO’s active involvement so many Ukrainians would not be dead. Canada joining Warsaw pact with the prospect of Russian missiles and troops stationed there and KGB organising a coup to remove their PM to install a puppet will elicit a similar (or perhaps worse given the track record) response from the US. And yes NATO tried to pull the same Ukraine stunt in South Ossetia. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/12/putin.georgia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/12/putin.georgia
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoWithout NATO's involvement, far more Ukrainians would be dead, their children kidnapped, their possessions stolen by Putin's thugs. If the KGB did achieve a coup in Canada, we probably would invade to put it down. The differences are 1) Euromaidan was a popular uprising, not a coup, and 2) the whole thing would have been over in a week, instead of bogging down into a stalemate and humiliating our army. Your link is just quoting Putin complaining that Bush wouldn't help him with his coup in Georgia.
- krippe 3y agoIt'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.
- bertil 3y ago> ANY desire to join NATO 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.
- the_why_of_y 3y agoFinland 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.
- 3y ago
- Ygg2 3y agoYeah. We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?! Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?
- georgespencer 3y ago> We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?! 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? > Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007? 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.
- Ygg2 3y ago> administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators 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. > That the United States "put [Putin into power]" assuming you're referring to the United States' inaction after the FSB apartment bombings? No. The economic shock therapy.
- georgespencer 3y ago> No. The economic shock therapy. Ah, so you mean the United States' inaction in providing aid to Russia after Yeltsin and the IMF began to aggressively reform Russia's economy? Your logic is that the United States installed Putin by not interfering more? > 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. It's notable that your own cartoonish straw man bears no resemblance whatsoever to the specific case you're trying to illustrate, unless I'm missing the part where the US installed Putin, allied with him, and then invaded/killed him. How many dictators has the United States installed, allied with, and then invaded or killed in your lifetime?
- AlGrothendieck 3y ago[flagged]
- dralley 3y ago[flagged]
- AlGrothendieck 3y ago[flagged]
- dralley 3y ago>Remember, the year before invasion all what Russian diplomacy wanted - it is to give guaranties that Ukraine won't join NATO? "The year before the invasion" - 2013, right? That's the year you're referring to? The year in which he got a 30 year lease on Sevastopol, thereby keeping Ukraine out of NATO for decades? Because Yanukovich was still in power, and doing everything to appease him? Why is it that the medal Shoigu got for the Crimea takeover commemorates a date a week prior to Maidan, and two weeks prior to the "official" start of the invasion? Why is it that despite the "diplomacy" they never even attempted to abide by the Minsk agreements (and if you feel like disputing this, refresh yourself on article 10 and the timeline of events at Donetsk Airport)?
- AlGrothendieck 3y ago[flagged]
- dralley 3y agoDo you or do you not agree that "the invasion" started in 2014, not in 2022. This is relevant. You said "before the invasion, all Putin wanted was diplomatic agreements to not join NATO". But that's obviously not true, was it? Because before 2022, he had already annexed Crimea. Before 2022, he had already been delivering massive supplies of weapons and "separatist volunteers" to Donetsk and Luhansk. Before 2022, he had already published "On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine". Before 2022, there was already zero chance of Ukraine being accepted into NATO. Those are not mere diplomatic tools, that is active aggression and denying their right to exist as a nation at an ideological level. How do you negotiate with "you are Russians, your identity is fake, your language is fake, your land is Russian, prepare to be absorbed".