Good. Sweden has very strong military capabilities with their Total Defense strategy. They also have very advanced weapons development and a huge defense industry, including their Gripen fighter jets. NATO got a lot stronger today.
As a Swede I often find myself thankful we don't have the military brainwashing the US has, even though we have a strong military for such a small country. The army stuff is there if you look but if you don't care you don't notice it much, if at all.
I'm not invested enough to have a really informed opinion about us joining NATO. But from what I know it'll be a good thing, just being able to help countries more that need it is enough of a reason IMO.
NATO was originally founded so that we'd stop invading each other, which should still hold true today.
I like to think of most developed nations as young adults. All of us are supposed to be mature, which means no more war. We can just talk about things like responsible adults.
Sadly, some of these younger fucks still haven't grasped the concept of "don't be an idiot", and we now need NATO for a strong message of "no, you're not going to touch us, there will be consequences". It's a sad thing that we still need to do so, but I'd rather have a large group of friends that I'm sure will have my back if someone would start shit.
So yes, Sweden joining NATO is a good thing. If anything it will lead to better cooperation and coordination between our countries. Not just in the event of war, but just sharing defense resources and intelligence as well. But the best argument is that we just like you Swedes, and we want to keep hanging out together.
You are confusing NATO and UN. UN was founded so that we'd stop invading each other.
NATO was, too. It's like nuclear weapons. Deterrence. Not meant to be used, but it's a stabilizer.
That's why Trump's words are so harmful. It undermines the deterrence value and the trust. Even though the US is the only country that has ever needed to activate Article 5, after 911. But he probably doesn't even know that.
NATO formed as a check on the threat to capitalism posed by the Soviet Union.
Now it's a check on the threat of the kleptocracy that is the Russian Federation.
This just means that Sweden will have send their troops to fight wars in middle east for oil companies.
Russia is hardly capable of attacking Ukraine that is right next to it and has some local support of some Russian citizens. They would never make it to Sweden in the next 100 years. But a lot of lives will be lost in the Middle East in that time.
isn't NATO a defensive treaty? which would mean no obligation to participate in actions of aggression?
It absolutely is; this guy is either an idiot or deliberately misleading.
Article V has been invoked exactly one time, by the United States after the September 11 attacks. The direct outcomes of this were two operations: Operation Eagle Assist, where NATO forces helped patrol and monitor US airspace in the immediate months after 9/11, and Operation Active Endeavour, a maritime operation where NATO ships patrolled and secured shipping lines in the Mediterranean. NATO itself was not directly involved under Article V in the Iraq invasion, though some members did voluntarily participate (hence Bush's "coalition of the willing").
There have been NATO operations in the Middle East under Article IV invoked by Turkey, which mandates only military consultation from members, not direct intervention, though they may voluntarily participate if they want. Likewise, NATO was involved in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is not in the Middle East) and Libya in a similar voluntary capacity. It should be noted that, despite not being a member, Sweden did participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan, voluntarily.
Sweden is only obligated to participate in military action if a member state is actively attacked. Otherwise, it's able to voluntarily participate in other NATO operations, as it has already done in the past. That NATO is a tightly organized and coordinated international military organization makes it really useful for large international operations - generally directed by the UN - but outside of defensive invocations of Article V, these are strictly optional, and members very much have refused to participate in American-led operations that they don't agree with (see Iraq).
Only on paper. In practice there are many financial and military infulence that US gets when a country joins NATO that result in joining wars in Middle East.
Such as when America tried to lead everyone into a predictably disastrous invasion of Iraq, resulting in most of Europe telling us to fuck off?
Truly, the 'infulence' of America is mighty and all must tremble before it.
This was all after the invasion to support the fledgling new Iraqi government.
If ten trainers from Norway training the Iraqi military to resist terrorist attacks is your idea of an example of gross western imperialism, you'll have to forgive me for not being hugely convinced.
You took it out of a context of a bigger picture. Of course on it self it is not the end of the World, but it was a simple show of how US influneced NATO states to do its bidding to get oil. Other horrible things that they are doing around the World and other NATO invasions are what really puts it all toghether.
No, it is not, and I'm not going to allow you to just walk back your claims after some inconvenience. To quote you yourself:
This just means that Sweden will have [to] send their troops to fight wars in middle east for oil companies.
No, it doesn't. NATO membership does not mean that anyone is forced to fight wars in the Middle East. If that were the case, all of NATO would have been roped into the Iraq invasion, but they weren't. The vast majority told America to fuck off during the invasion, and only lightly participated in some minor training operations with the Iraqi military afterwards.
And again, Sweden not being in NATO did not prevent it from participating in other NATO campaigns in a voluntary capacity. Your claim that Sweden joining NATO means that it's going to be forced to participate in all these Middle Eastern wars against its will simply does not stand up to even a cursory look at actual reality. You can believe whatever you like since it appears that you're immune to facts, but anyone else reading this should know that you're not saying anything based in actual evidence.
Also, if you really think that ten Norwegians trying to teach Iraqi soldiers how to resist the groups that later became ISIS is an example of the "horrible things" that NATO does, that says much more about you than it does about NATO. The world is actually more complicated than "US brainwashes the world into killing the third world because oil".
Cheers.
They are not forced legally but practically indirectly. It is as voluntary as someone agreeing to landlords terms or those of your employer. Legally speaking, yes no one is forcing you, practically speaking you don't really have a choice and such a system was created on purpose so you can't have a choice.
Once you start depending on US for their support in your defense, you need to scratch their back in doing an invasion or two so they keep supplying your weapons.
What's your source on that?
If none go spread your propaganda somewhere else, you're either a russian bot or a sympathiser. Either way you will find no friends here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations
All of NATO wars were in non-NATO countries, all where offensive invasitions. They fight in MIddle East for oil companies.
I do not sympathize with Russian government, they are just as bad when given the chance. But NATO is scarier.
Calling people to support Russia when they critisize your government is insane.
And again, the only mandatory after Article V have been monitoring and patrolling US airspace for a few months after 9/11 and some maritime operations in the Mediterranean to protect shipping and prevent terrorism and smuggling. All those other NATO operations were voluntary, and other NATO countries have happily told the US to fuck off when they don't want to be involved.
Also, Sweden, despite not being in NATO, also participated in operations in Afghanistan. Your premise that being in NATO necessarily causes you to be involuntarily dragged into gallivanting around the Middle East is simply false. Other nations have autonomy and agency, actually. Not everything is about America.
Sweden, like many other non-NATO states, are only officially not in NATO because of lack of popular support. These wars are used to pass these things officially.
US influences many countries, being in NATO officailly makes this easier. As volontery as it might seem, people rarely give support for these things and politicains that do usually get funded by the US.
Just an FYI. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.
Wikipedia has citations.
I don't know what could you find as more reliable? What did you have in mind?
Also I don't think this is fair. I gave you the source, it is just as reliable as any other, since it has citations for all of it. If the situtation was reversed and you saw wikipedia article that claimed the opposite and I replied exactly the way you did, how would you react? Be honest
Good. Sweden has very strong military capabilities with their Total Defense strategy. They also have very advanced weapons development and a huge defense industry, including their Gripen fighter jets. NATO got a lot stronger today.
As a Swede I often find myself thankful we don't have the military brainwashing the US has, even though we have a strong military for such a small country. The army stuff is there if you look but if you don't care you don't notice it much, if at all. I'm not invested enough to have a really informed opinion about us joining NATO. But from what I know it'll be a good thing, just being able to help countries more that need it is enough of a reason IMO.
NATO was originally founded so that we'd stop invading each other, which should still hold true today.
I like to think of most developed nations as young adults. All of us are supposed to be mature, which means no more war. We can just talk about things like responsible adults.
Sadly, some of these younger fucks still haven't grasped the concept of "don't be an idiot", and we now need NATO for a strong message of "no, you're not going to touch us, there will be consequences". It's a sad thing that we still need to do so, but I'd rather have a large group of friends that I'm sure will have my back if someone would start shit.
So yes, Sweden joining NATO is a good thing. If anything it will lead to better cooperation and coordination between our countries. Not just in the event of war, but just sharing defense resources and intelligence as well. But the best argument is that we just like you Swedes, and we want to keep hanging out together.
You are confusing NATO and UN. UN was founded so that we'd stop invading each other.
NATO was, too. It's like nuclear weapons. Deterrence. Not meant to be used, but it's a stabilizer.
That's why Trump's words are so harmful. It undermines the deterrence value and the trust. Even though the US is the only country that has ever needed to activate Article 5, after 911. But he probably doesn't even know that.
NATO formed as a check on the threat to capitalism posed by the Soviet Union.
Now it's a check on the threat of the kleptocracy that is the Russian Federation.
This just means that Sweden will have send their troops to fight wars in middle east for oil companies. Russia is hardly capable of attacking Ukraine that is right next to it and has some local support of some Russian citizens. They would never make it to Sweden in the next 100 years. But a lot of lives will be lost in the Middle East in that time.
isn't NATO a defensive treaty? which would mean no obligation to participate in actions of aggression?
It absolutely is; this guy is either an idiot or deliberately misleading.
Article V has been invoked exactly one time, by the United States after the September 11 attacks. The direct outcomes of this were two operations: Operation Eagle Assist, where NATO forces helped patrol and monitor US airspace in the immediate months after 9/11, and Operation Active Endeavour, a maritime operation where NATO ships patrolled and secured shipping lines in the Mediterranean. NATO itself was not directly involved under Article V in the Iraq invasion, though some members did voluntarily participate (hence Bush's "coalition of the willing").
There have been NATO operations in the Middle East under Article IV invoked by Turkey, which mandates only military consultation from members, not direct intervention, though they may voluntarily participate if they want. Likewise, NATO was involved in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is not in the Middle East) and Libya in a similar voluntary capacity. It should be noted that, despite not being a member, Sweden did participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan, voluntarily.
Sweden is only obligated to participate in military action if a member state is actively attacked. Otherwise, it's able to voluntarily participate in other NATO operations, as it has already done in the past. That NATO is a tightly organized and coordinated international military organization makes it really useful for large international operations - generally directed by the UN - but outside of defensive invocations of Article V, these are strictly optional, and members very much have refused to participate in American-led operations that they don't agree with (see Iraq).
Only on paper. In practice there are many financial and military infulence that US gets when a country joins NATO that result in joining wars in Middle East.
Such as when America tried to lead everyone into a predictably disastrous invasion of Iraq, resulting in most of Europe telling us to fuck off?
Truly, the 'infulence' of America is mighty and all must tremble before it.
They actually did get Europe involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Training_Mission_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Other_NATO_Contributions Germany,France,Spain,Poland,Norway all of them ended up training armies for US oil companies invasions. Influence is there.
This was all after the invasion to support the fledgling new Iraqi government.
If ten trainers from Norway training the Iraqi military to resist terrorist attacks is your idea of an example of gross western imperialism, you'll have to forgive me for not being hugely convinced.
You took it out of a context of a bigger picture. Of course on it self it is not the end of the World, but it was a simple show of how US influneced NATO states to do its bidding to get oil. Other horrible things that they are doing around the World and other NATO invasions are what really puts it all toghether.
No, it is not, and I'm not going to allow you to just walk back your claims after some inconvenience. To quote you yourself:
No, it doesn't. NATO membership does not mean that anyone is forced to fight wars in the Middle East. If that were the case, all of NATO would have been roped into the Iraq invasion, but they weren't. The vast majority told America to fuck off during the invasion, and only lightly participated in some minor training operations with the Iraqi military afterwards.
And again, Sweden not being in NATO did not prevent it from participating in other NATO campaigns in a voluntary capacity. Your claim that Sweden joining NATO means that it's going to be forced to participate in all these Middle Eastern wars against its will simply does not stand up to even a cursory look at actual reality. You can believe whatever you like since it appears that you're immune to facts, but anyone else reading this should know that you're not saying anything based in actual evidence.
Also, if you really think that ten Norwegians trying to teach Iraqi soldiers how to resist the groups that later became ISIS is an example of the "horrible things" that NATO does, that says much more about you than it does about NATO. The world is actually more complicated than "US brainwashes the world into killing the third world because oil".
Cheers.
They are not forced legally but practically indirectly. It is as voluntary as someone agreeing to landlords terms or those of your employer. Legally speaking, yes no one is forcing you, practically speaking you don't really have a choice and such a system was created on purpose so you can't have a choice. Once you start depending on US for their support in your defense, you need to scratch their back in doing an invasion or two so they keep supplying your weapons.
What's your source on that?
If none go spread your propaganda somewhere else, you're either a russian bot or a sympathiser. Either way you will find no friends here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations All of NATO wars were in non-NATO countries, all where offensive invasitions. They fight in MIddle East for oil companies. I do not sympathize with Russian government, they are just as bad when given the chance. But NATO is scarier. Calling people to support Russia when they critisize your government is insane.
And again, the only mandatory after Article V have been monitoring and patrolling US airspace for a few months after 9/11 and some maritime operations in the Mediterranean to protect shipping and prevent terrorism and smuggling. All those other NATO operations were voluntary, and other NATO countries have happily told the US to fuck off when they don't want to be involved.
Also, Sweden, despite not being in NATO, also participated in operations in Afghanistan. Your premise that being in NATO necessarily causes you to be involuntarily dragged into gallivanting around the Middle East is simply false. Other nations have autonomy and agency, actually. Not everything is about America.
Sweden, like many other non-NATO states, are only officially not in NATO because of lack of popular support. These wars are used to pass these things officially. US influences many countries, being in NATO officailly makes this easier. As volontery as it might seem, people rarely give support for these things and politicains that do usually get funded by the US.
Just an FYI. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.
Wikipedia has citations. I don't know what could you find as more reliable? What did you have in mind? Also I don't think this is fair. I gave you the source, it is just as reliable as any other, since it has citations for all of it. If the situtation was reversed and you saw wikipedia article that claimed the opposite and I replied exactly the way you did, how would you react? Be honest