8 ms·

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

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.

ttymck 3y ago
I 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 ago
  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-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 ago
    Yes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.
    - Paradigma11 3y ago
      There 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.
- asveikau 3y ago
  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.
  - ardaoweo 3y ago
    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.
    - euroderf 3y ago
      > shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. 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.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    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).
    - Paradigma11 3y ago
      I think if he is successful in Ukraine, Transnistra/Moldowa are the logical next step. Then he most likely would use his stooges like Orban and radicalized Russian minorities to create problems and wait for an opportunity.
klipt 3y ago
Things are looking up for NATO! Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.
- dguest 3y ago
  I'm too lazy to look this up. Can he do that?
  - adastra22 3y ago
    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.
- joecool1029 3y ago
  > 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/congress-nato-exit-trump/ 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: >The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    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...
  - Epa095 3y ago
    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.
lumb63 3y ago
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.
- realusername 3y ago
  > It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.
- ipython 3y ago
  That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.
- hollerith 3y ago
  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.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.
eduction 3y ago
>Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict How? Norway (long a member) has Arctic ports, Sweden does not touch the Arctic.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Indeed. Plus Finland is already in the club, and they're def. on the arctic.
  - eduction 3y ago
    They are not. Not since the 1940s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice

ttymck 3y ago

I 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 ago
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-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 ago
  Yes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.
  - Paradigma11 3y ago
    There 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.
asveikau 3y ago
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.
- ardaoweo 3y ago
  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.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    > shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. 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.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  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).
  - Paradigma11 3y ago
    I think if he is successful in Ukraine, Transnistra/Moldowa are the logical next step. Then he most likely would use his stooges like Orban and radicalized Russian minorities to create problems and wait for an opportunity.

klipt 3y ago

Things are looking up for NATO! Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.

dguest 3y ago
I'm too lazy to look this up. Can he do that?
- adastra22 3y ago
  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.
joecool1029 3y ago
> 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/congress-nato-exit-trump/ 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: >The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  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...
- Epa095 3y ago
  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.

lumb63 3y ago

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.

realusername 3y ago
> It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.
ipython 3y ago
That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.
hollerith 3y ago
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.
adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.

eduction 3y ago

>Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict How? Norway (long a member) has Arctic ports, Sweden does not touch the Arctic.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
Indeed. Plus Finland is already in the club, and they're def. on the arctic.
- eduction 3y ago
  They are not. Not since the 1940s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice