lol reminds me of when it was explained to me that Russia is an Asian country and if I supported Ukraine it meant I was racist against Asians
That doesn't make any sense on absolutely every level. lol
They will then post an article talking about Russia “reclaiming” its Asian-ness and another that says that it was Asian all along. Then they will downvote you into negative double digits while explaining how horrible a person you are
PS I actually moved here after many months of it. Had no idea what “ml” meant. I joined there because it was the dev instance.
The devs being tankies was one of the reasons why I went with kbin / mbin over Lemmy. It just didn't sit right with me. But I also couldn't stand the layout / design.
I wish I had known! I really do. But I’m here now and it’s ok. This instance is full of nice people for the most part, it’s like 2005-era social media again.
Yeah, that's some fun logic. A equals B, and B equals C, so A equals C. But this isn't math and subsets aren't totality. So hating Russia for warmongering isn't hating Asians for being Asian.
Yiikes the comments there are so toxic its crazy. Glad I've got those instances blocked.
Doesn’t really change the fact that Russia, more or less in its current form, has been bullying its neighbours for half a millenia. Longer, if you count the Grand Duchy of Moscow as Russia.
Could be said the same for most Europen countries to be honest.
Start naming 😄 I wouldn’t say most. Britain, France, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, France and Russia had their little swingers club changing partners every few years or so, but there are more countries in Europe.
I’m from Latvia. Russian chauvinism is something I know of first hand. Most other European countries that I have been to have a different, more accepting vibe than the parts that are Russian influenced and manipulated.
So it really can’t be said about most European countries. Maybe historically, but definitely not currently.
I’d like to reitarate that there are good people everywhere. Part of my family is Russian and I like them. I have Russian friends. But it can’t be denied that as a state it’s goddamn awful and should disintegrate asap.
I don't consider them to be Russian trash. Only Putin and his sympathizers.
It's such a bizarre thing... Communism fell in Russia probably before many of these people were born. But the support the successor state to the Soviet Union, which is an authoritarian kleptocracy, because why? Nostalgia? Ignorance?
Side note, this is also the French spelling of Putin. So you can eat Poutine while being mad at Poutine (I'll let you guess which is which, unless you're a cannibal then everything goes TBF).
Sorry, french changes the spelling of proper nouns?
The last name of the president of Russia is Пу́тин. Since people can’t read that without knowing Cyrillic, we need a way to map Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. However, neither Cyrillic nor Latin script have universal pronunciations: the phonetic value of letters change depending on the language. This leads to the romanization of a name being different depending what the source and target language is. Пу́тин is Putin for Russian-to-English, but Poutine for Russian-to-French. They’re both equally correct, and neither is a change from the other.
I feel like this is advanced trollery, as "poutine" is a French Canadian word, not French French, and pronounced quite differently than Putin.
So does English, in Russian Putin's name is Путин.
Yep, especially when they come from different alphabets. But we used to do it for English names too (mostly medieval ones though).
I thought it was "putain"
Nah, that is actually a slang for sex workers, who do not deserve to be associated with Putin.
Yeah, and it made me kinda hungry too...
Cheese curds have nothing to do with this.
You're right, at least cheese curds get thrown out when the go bad. Kinda like what Putin does with critics.
[Pours hot gravy on Putin] "A crown for King."
Cheese curds go bad? I guess I never let them last long enough to find out.
I never knew the Russian president was actually a Canadian dish in disguise.
In fact, come to think of it, why don't the Russians simply eat him? If he's that delicious then surely they gotta dig in.
Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate.
It does worry me how centralized power balance in the World has become over US controlling most of the conflicts and countries in the World.
Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate.
I'll pick the middle option: Putin is high on his own supply.
The man made it clear that dissent will be met with swift and gruesome consequences. This is a sure-fire recipe for surrounding yourself with yes-men that are not smart enough to get the hell out. And BTW, that's always a career where everyone's last promotion is "pavement inspector", and training starts immediately at an open 6th floor window. So there's some cocky, can't-guage-risk-for-a-damn people mixed in there too. The result is a bunch of decisions from the head-of-state that only make sense between those in his court, and fail to hold up to scrutiny outside those walls.
How is the US controlling conflicts and countries?
By CIA coups, puppet governments, military funding, weapon supplies to insurgents or to the governments, sanctions, etc.
These are not arguments. It is a list of fun buzzwords. Do you have anything specific or concrete to talk about? Am I talking to ChatGPT? I need to know! Are you my skynet daddy?
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.
Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn't be necessary
Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.
You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.
You've never heard of UN peacekeepers?
Do you know what a UN peacekeeper is?
They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there's countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.
So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren't there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.
Don't get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.
But peacekeepers aren't a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there's peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.
Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn't have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn't have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader
Yeah, not defense.
Sigh. You're missing my point
Nah they addressed it. You missed their point.
the un and nato serve two very different and distinct purposes though.
Yes?
Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you're right there), we're talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.
I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn't there. Or I didn't intend, at least.
In no way am I trying to minimise Putin's evil behaviour.
The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn't be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I'm not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.
Not Post WWII, it's Post Napoleon neutrality, the 6th coalition was the last hurrah of Swedish involvement in continental affairs, and thus the beginning of their extended neutrality in such affairs.
So -- pure curiosity... Which countries could yet still potentially join NATO.
Switzerland doesn't join anything ever, so it's the dark horse. But since everything is done by referendum there, it could change on a dime if the public demanded it.
Austria literally has it in their constitution that they aren't allowed -- but in theory they could change their constitution (unlikely).
Moldova has the whole Transnistria incentive -- but NATO would be shy about that one, because that could potentially immediately put them in hot conflict. However, suppose they backdoored their way in by creating a union with Romania (not impossible, but complicated).
Ireland has been neutral forever -- but the public support for Ukraine is extremely high. So they might even be possible. Higher than Switzerland anyway ;)
Bosnia and Herzegovina is sort of a special case where they're sort of partially engaged already.
Serbia is extremely unlikely while they continue to be extremely contemptuous of everyone. That's fine. Although Kosovo is sort of under NATO protection.
In theory, Georgia or Armenia would be candidates, but Turkey would pooh-pooh Armenia right away, and Georgia has contested territory.
In order of odds, I wager: Ireland, Moldova (via Romania), Georgia+Ukraine (in that order chronologically).
I'm interested in Ireland too, especially in the next few years as the reunification party is resurgent
Ireland has no chance, people here are extremely pro neutrality to the point there were protests when American Airforce jets refueled here. It's not a case of alignment, it's that nobody wants to get involved in any sort of conflict.
That was a very long time ago unless I've missed something more recent? (Genuine question) Personally think it's time to re-examine our neutrality
It feels wrong not to support Ukraine militarily.
You're all very neutral, until it comes to throwing an Englishman in the sea - LAI-DEE-DAI-DEE-DEE!!!
Hi-dilly-hi....hi-dilly-ho.....over the side of the boat you go!
Nah we're all friendly now for the most part. Sporting events excluded naturally where fervent, screaming nationalism from the Irish comes in and the English wonder why we are so angry at them. :D
There was a lot of backlash in the last few months when Leo Varadkar attended a defense conference which was mostly NATO members. He was forced to state that Ireland will not join any military alliance whatsoever.
I do agree that it feels wrong to not support countries that realistically we're aligned with but the Irish military is in such a state that if we tried I'd expect Ukraine to actually donate equipment to us instead
A reunified Ireland could benefit from being in NATO in case England loses their God damn minds and tried to take them back at some point in the future, but I guess those days are over.
Yeah, those days are gone thankfully. Also it would be a mistake of epic proportions to try and subjugate the Irish one last time tbh. Epic proportions.
Don't fearmonger people just so they can join some wars in the middle east for oil companies. They are under no threat and have only to lose.
To be fair, Ireland doesn’t have the resources or population to be involved in a continental conflict in a impactful way. Getting involved in a war you might not win and might result in the end of your small nation isn’t normally a good idea.
I don’t believe nato could lose a war with Russia, but I don’t blame Ireland for not wanting to risk it
If Russia somehow won a war against NATO and took over all the European NATO countries, which is the vast majority of Europe, what would prevent them from just taking over the leftover bits at that point?
Yeah neutrality is worthless at that point. Sure Hitler wasn't going to stop with the UK. We were definitely next.
The main advantage it has given us has been as a trusted UN peacekeeper where the Irish Defence Forces have been seen as a neutral third part to conflict and they have done and continue to do solid work abroad in that regard.
Doesn't Ireland already have defensive pact status with a bunch of NATO members through the EU? If your fellow EU states are being attacked, can you really stay out?
Basically any country that was a previous Russian/Soviet satellite and are not interested in being one anymore.
Ukraine
Personally, I see no reason why ever nation couldn't join NATO at some point.
I expect "clever" dipshits to be like "NORTH ATLANTIC", though.
Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It's baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what's invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn't invoke it.
I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn't apply to them.
We got one!
but without a change to the treaty
If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.
Changing that treaty is not going to be easy. There are a lot of parties involved.
Edit: as to your second sentence, there are some thoughts about making a NATO-equivalent for the Pacific.
Maybe they don't want to die in middle east for US oil companies.
You got downvoted but you're not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.
NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias
NATO didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term 'coalition of the willing'. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don't have a defensive pact. Ow wait!
Did Iraq and Libya invade any democracies or NATO? Plenty of coping and short term memories in this thread. Or it could be something else?
Did anyone say they did?
You did.
Quote it then
Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don't have a defensive pact. Ow wait!
Did Iraq and Libya invade
the west would never invade
They are the same? What the hell...
Wasn't libya a un coalition?
I thought Switzerland condemned Israel?
Never in a million years would Switzerland condemn Israel. The state loves Israel. Maybe a strongly worder "please don't kill children in hospitals" was said, but no measures whatsoever were taken
A lot of countries from your list are already very close with NATO, they have NATO offices in their top military command and do most of the military exceraises with NATO. NATO also has a lot of officers of these countries on their paycheck, even some biggest presidentail candidates in these countries are NATO generals.
NATO has a huge control over the netural governments, only reason they don't join is because of their populations that don't like NATO countries invading middle east for oil. Mostly in the Balkans that is the case and some of the countries that joined, they did it without referendums against the will of their people. There is a big sentiment of NATO looking imperialistic and treating middle east and the balkans as colonies. Bosnia for example, doesn't even have real independence, high representitve placed by the west, from the UN can veto anything that is not in their interest. "So far, all of the High Representatives named have been from European Union countries, and their principal deputies have typically been from the United States"
Church of Sweden and no Religion account for 91% of all swedes. Immigrants with a different religion don't even account for 10%
it's amazing the chain of effect that happened when putin got so bold that he got orban to not only side with ukraine but also drop opposition to finland joining nato which caused sweden to join
Russia fucked up so badly LOL.
NEUTRALITY! HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Not much if you're left to defend yourself against a dictator who likes playing land grab and takes any excuse to rape murder and torture to subjugate as a valid excuse.
Look, I hate war as much as the next guy, but you gotta be pragmatic here. Putin is NOT a nice guy, to make an understatement. Without Putin's in this world, we wouldn't need wars, but here we are...
Sometimes standing up for principles and what's right supersedes pragmaticism. Surely you get what it means to have ideals.
This has happened exactly zero times in the one thousand year history of Sweden. Except for when the Danes came, but they got disposed of.
You're right. Go tell them they have nothing to fear from Putin because the Shield Of History is protecting them.
Meanwhile Australia, New Zealand, USA et al should all dispand all of their defense forces because they've never been invaded before so of course, history protects them too
Ok, I'm not the one to call strawman on people, I strawman all the time, but holy strawman batman.
No. It's not a strawman. I'm not making a claim about your argument, I'm being sarcastic
Technically it's not "post-WWII neutrality", since this specific neutrality began when Sweden declared its neutrality in September 1939, which isn't after WWII, but pre/during.
Is this good or bad, I'm dumb
Good for NATO, good for Sweden, good for Europe, good for Ukraine, probably good for the Russian people. Bad for specifically Vladimir Putin.
NATO is basically a mutual-defense treaty: all member states agree to fight on behalf of other members if attacked by a third party. Having Sweden in the organization means that there are more soldiers available if other members are attacked (good for NATO), it means that Sweden has allies if they're attacked (good for Sweden), and it means that Europe is more united as a defensible whole (good for Europe). And it reduces the possible targets for Putin's aggression (probably good for the Russian people, definitely bad for Putin). It also means that, once the war in Ukraine ends and they join NATO, they essentially cannot be attacked by Russia again (good for Ukraine).
Fuck Russian trash.
lol the tankies downvoted you
Lemmygrad, lemmy.ml and hexbear in shambles.
Oh hexbear too? I have noticed a lot of questionable posts coming from there
Yep. Just red through some of the comments on lemmy.ml for this news and compare it to the instance of the accounts. https://fedia.io/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml/t/597721/Sweden-officially-joins-NATO#comments
lol reminds me of when it was explained to me that Russia is an Asian country and if I supported Ukraine it meant I was racist against Asians
That doesn't make any sense on absolutely every level. lol
They will then post an article talking about Russia “reclaiming” its Asian-ness and another that says that it was Asian all along. Then they will downvote you into negative double digits while explaining how horrible a person you are
PS I actually moved here after many months of it. Had no idea what “ml” meant. I joined there because it was the dev instance.
The devs being tankies was one of the reasons why I went with kbin / mbin over Lemmy. It just didn't sit right with me. But I also couldn't stand the layout / design.
I wish I had known! I really do. But I’m here now and it’s ok. This instance is full of nice people for the most part, it’s like 2005-era social media again.
Yeah, that's some fun logic. A equals B, and B equals C, so A equals C. But this isn't math and subsets aren't totality. So hating Russia for warmongering isn't hating Asians for being Asian.
Yiikes the comments there are so toxic its crazy. Glad I've got those instances blocked.
There are good people in Russia.
There are good people everywhere.
Doesn’t really change the fact that Russia, more or less in its current form, has been bullying its neighbours for half a millenia. Longer, if you count the Grand Duchy of Moscow as Russia.
Could be said the same for most Europen countries to be honest.
Start naming 😄 I wouldn’t say most. Britain, France, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, France and Russia had their little swingers club changing partners every few years or so, but there are more countries in Europe.
I’m from Latvia. Russian chauvinism is something I know of first hand. Most other European countries that I have been to have a different, more accepting vibe than the parts that are Russian influenced and manipulated.
So it really can’t be said about most European countries. Maybe historically, but definitely not currently.
I’d like to reitarate that there are good people everywhere. Part of my family is Russian and I like them. I have Russian friends. But it can’t be denied that as a state it’s goddamn awful and should disintegrate asap.
I don't consider them to be Russian trash. Only Putin and his sympathizers.
It's such a bizarre thing... Communism fell in Russia probably before many of these people were born. But the support the successor state to the Soviet Union, which is an authoritarian kleptocracy, because why? Nostalgia? Ignorance?
Tankies be weird.
russia was never communist.
I guess you would call Navalny tankie too
Fuck Zionist and pro-Putin trash instead!
So Poutine wanted to weaken NATO, ends up adding countries, including one that has been neutral for an incredibly long time.
Sweden has a strong military industry too and Finnland is literally right at Russia's border. Putin is a master strategist.
Dude really read a history book about Hitler fighting a one front war and somehow turning it into a three front war and said “Hold my beer”
Your comment reminded me of this video, highly worth a watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Your spellcheck outed you as a Canadian
Side note, this is also the French spelling of Putin. So you can eat Poutine while being mad at Poutine (I'll let you guess which is which, unless you're a cannibal then everything goes TBF).
Sorry, french changes the spelling of proper nouns?
The last name of the president of Russia is Пу́тин. Since people can’t read that without knowing Cyrillic, we need a way to map Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. However, neither Cyrillic nor Latin script have universal pronunciations: the phonetic value of letters change depending on the language. This leads to the romanization of a name being different depending what the source and target language is. Пу́тин is Putin for Russian-to-English, but Poutine for Russian-to-French. They’re both equally correct, and neither is a change from the other.
I feel like this is advanced trollery, as "poutine" is a French Canadian word, not French French, and pronounced quite differently than Putin.
So does English, in Russian Putin's name is Путин.
Yep, especially when they come from different alphabets. But we used to do it for English names too (mostly medieval ones though).
I thought it was "putain"
Nah, that is actually a slang for sex workers, who do not deserve to be associated with Putin.
Yeah, and it made me kinda hungry too...
Cheese curds have nothing to do with this.
You're right, at least cheese curds get thrown out when the go bad. Kinda like what Putin does with critics.
[Pours hot gravy on Putin] "A crown for King."
Cheese curds go bad? I guess I never let them last long enough to find out.
I never knew the Russian president was actually a Canadian dish in disguise.
In fact, come to think of it, why don't the Russians simply eat him? If he's that delicious then surely they gotta dig in.
Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate. It does worry me how centralized power balance in the World has become over US controlling most of the conflicts and countries in the World.
I'll pick the middle option: Putin is high on his own supply.
The man made it clear that dissent will be met with swift and gruesome consequences. This is a sure-fire recipe for surrounding yourself with yes-men that are not smart enough to get the hell out. And BTW, that's always a career where everyone's last promotion is "pavement inspector", and training starts immediately at an open 6th floor window. So there's some cocky, can't-guage-risk-for-a-damn people mixed in there too. The result is a bunch of decisions from the head-of-state that only make sense between those in his court, and fail to hold up to scrutiny outside those walls.
How is the US controlling conflicts and countries?
By CIA coups, puppet governments, military funding, weapon supplies to insurgents or to the governments, sanctions, etc.
These are not arguments. It is a list of fun buzzwords. Do you have anything specific or concrete to talk about? Am I talking to ChatGPT? I need to know! Are you my skynet daddy?
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.
NATO just got a little Sweder
Plis stop dö fajting.
But a mööse bit my sister.
Deth tu mööse! Joyna NATO.
Fucking Putin
Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn't be necessary
Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.
You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.
You've never heard of UN peacekeepers?
Do you know what a UN peacekeeper is?
They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there's countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.
So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren't there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.
Don't get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.
But peacekeepers aren't a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there's peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.
Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn't have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn't have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader
Yeah, not defense.
Sigh. You're missing my point
Nah they addressed it. You missed their point.
the un and nato serve two very different and distinct purposes though.
Yes?
Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you're right there), we're talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.
I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn't there. Or I didn't intend, at least. In no way am I trying to minimise Putin's evil behaviour. The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn't be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I'm not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.
Putin: If anyone joins NATO there will be dire consequences!
Sweden: Du är inte lika stark som du luktar dumjävel
Have to add a funny FU to Putin that I saw. Yesterday, a B 52, and a B1B did a flyover of Stockholm escorted by Swedish Gripens
I went through to the trouble of translating that, and it was worth it.
Not Post WWII, it's Post Napoleon neutrality, the 6th coalition was the last hurrah of Swedish involvement in continental affairs, and thus the beginning of their extended neutrality in such affairs.
So -- pure curiosity... Which countries could yet still potentially join NATO.
Switzerland doesn't join anything ever, so it's the dark horse. But since everything is done by referendum there, it could change on a dime if the public demanded it.
Austria literally has it in their constitution that they aren't allowed -- but in theory they could change their constitution (unlikely).
Moldova has the whole Transnistria incentive -- but NATO would be shy about that one, because that could potentially immediately put them in hot conflict. However, suppose they backdoored their way in by creating a union with Romania (not impossible, but complicated).
Ireland has been neutral forever -- but the public support for Ukraine is extremely high. So they might even be possible. Higher than Switzerland anyway ;)
Bosnia and Herzegovina is sort of a special case where they're sort of partially engaged already.
Serbia is extremely unlikely while they continue to be extremely contemptuous of everyone. That's fine. Although Kosovo is sort of under NATO protection.
In theory, Georgia or Armenia would be candidates, but Turkey would pooh-pooh Armenia right away, and Georgia has contested territory.
In order of odds, I wager: Ireland, Moldova (via Romania), Georgia+Ukraine (in that order chronologically).
I'm interested in Ireland too, especially in the next few years as the reunification party is resurgent
Ireland has no chance, people here are extremely pro neutrality to the point there were protests when American Airforce jets refueled here. It's not a case of alignment, it's that nobody wants to get involved in any sort of conflict.
That was a very long time ago unless I've missed something more recent? (Genuine question) Personally think it's time to re-examine our neutrality
It feels wrong not to support Ukraine militarily.
You're all very neutral, until it comes to throwing an Englishman in the sea - LAI-DEE-DAI-DEE-DEE!!!
Hi-dilly-hi....hi-dilly-ho.....over the side of the boat you go!
Nah we're all friendly now for the most part. Sporting events excluded naturally where fervent, screaming nationalism from the Irish comes in and the English wonder why we are so angry at them. :D
There was a lot of backlash in the last few months when Leo Varadkar attended a defense conference which was mostly NATO members. He was forced to state that Ireland will not join any military alliance whatsoever. I do agree that it feels wrong to not support countries that realistically we're aligned with but the Irish military is in such a state that if we tried I'd expect Ukraine to actually donate equipment to us instead
A reunified Ireland could benefit from being in NATO in case England loses their God damn minds and tried to take them back at some point in the future, but I guess those days are over.
Yeah, those days are gone thankfully. Also it would be a mistake of epic proportions to try and subjugate the Irish one last time tbh. Epic proportions.
Don't fearmonger people just so they can join some wars in the middle east for oil companies. They are under no threat and have only to lose.
To be fair, Ireland doesn’t have the resources or population to be involved in a continental conflict in a impactful way. Getting involved in a war you might not win and might result in the end of your small nation isn’t normally a good idea.
I don’t believe nato could lose a war with Russia, but I don’t blame Ireland for not wanting to risk it
If Russia somehow won a war against NATO and took over all the European NATO countries, which is the vast majority of Europe, what would prevent them from just taking over the leftover bits at that point?
Yeah neutrality is worthless at that point. Sure Hitler wasn't going to stop with the UK. We were definitely next.
The main advantage it has given us has been as a trusted UN peacekeeper where the Irish Defence Forces have been seen as a neutral third part to conflict and they have done and continue to do solid work abroad in that regard.
Doesn't Ireland already have defensive pact status with a bunch of NATO members through the EU? If your fellow EU states are being attacked, can you really stay out?
Basically any country that was a previous Russian/Soviet satellite and are not interested in being one anymore.
Ukraine
Personally, I see no reason why ever nation couldn't join NATO at some point.
I expect "clever" dipshits to be like "NORTH ATLANTIC", though.
Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It's baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what's invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn't invoke it.
I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn't apply to them.
We got one!
If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.
Changing that treaty is not going to be easy. There are a lot of parties involved.
Edit: as to your second sentence, there are some thoughts about making a NATO-equivalent for the Pacific.
Maybe they don't want to die in middle east for US oil companies.
You got downvoted but you're not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.
NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias
NATO didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term 'coalition of the willing'. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don't have a defensive pact. Ow wait!
Did Iraq and Libya invade any democracies or NATO? Plenty of coping and short term memories in this thread. Or it could be something else?
Did anyone say they did?
You did.
Quote it then
They are the same? What the hell...
Wasn't libya a un coalition?
I thought Switzerland condemned Israel?
Never in a million years would Switzerland condemn Israel. The state loves Israel. Maybe a strongly worder "please don't kill children in hospitals" was said, but no measures whatsoever were taken
A lot of countries from your list are already very close with NATO, they have NATO offices in their top military command and do most of the military exceraises with NATO. NATO also has a lot of officers of these countries on their paycheck, even some biggest presidentail candidates in these countries are NATO generals.
NATO has a huge control over the netural governments, only reason they don't join is because of their populations that don't like NATO countries invading middle east for oil. Mostly in the Balkans that is the case and some of the countries that joined, they did it without referendums against the will of their people. There is a big sentiment of NATO looking imperialistic and treating middle east and the balkans as colonies. Bosnia for example, doesn't even have real independence, high representitve placed by the west, from the UN can veto anything that is not in their interest. "So far, all of the High Representatives named have been from European Union countries, and their principal deputies have typically been from the United States"
Good. Cry some more Russia.
Tears of a clown plays
Welcome Sweden! It's good to have you
If feels peculiar. Like when you are the little brother of some guy and he brings you into their club and you become like their mascot or something.
Vikings with axes have joined the conversation...
90% of Sweden are migrants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
Church of Sweden and no Religion account for 91% of all swedes. Immigrants with a different religion don't even account for 10%
it's amazing the chain of effect that happened when putin got so bold that he got orban to not only side with ukraine but also drop opposition to finland joining nato which caused sweden to join
Russia fucked up so badly LOL.
NEUTRALITY! HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Not much if you're left to defend yourself against a dictator who likes playing land grab and takes any excuse to rape murder and torture to subjugate as a valid excuse.
Look, I hate war as much as the next guy, but you gotta be pragmatic here. Putin is NOT a nice guy, to make an understatement. Without Putin's in this world, we wouldn't need wars, but here we are...
Sometimes standing up for principles and what's right supersedes pragmaticism. Surely you get what it means to have ideals.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The only reply worth reading lmao
Getting picked off piecemeal by warmongers
Good god y'all!
This has happened exactly zero times in the one thousand year history of Sweden. Except for when the Danes came, but they got disposed of.
You're right. Go tell them they have nothing to fear from Putin because the Shield Of History is protecting them. Meanwhile Australia, New Zealand, USA et al should all dispand all of their defense forces because they've never been invaded before so of course, history protects them too
Ok, I'm not the one to call strawman on people, I strawman all the time, but holy strawman batman.
No. It's not a strawman. I'm not making a claim about your argument, I'm being sarcastic
Technically it's not "post-WWII neutrality", since this specific neutrality began when Sweden declared its neutrality in September 1939, which isn't after WWII, but pre/during.
Is this good or bad, I'm dumb
Good for NATO, good for Sweden, good for Europe, good for Ukraine, probably good for the Russian people. Bad for specifically Vladimir Putin.
NATO is basically a mutual-defense treaty: all member states agree to fight on behalf of other members if attacked by a third party. Having Sweden in the organization means that there are more soldiers available if other members are attacked (good for NATO), it means that Sweden has allies if they're attacked (good for Sweden), and it means that Europe is more united as a defensible whole (good for Europe). And it reduces the possible targets for Putin's aggression (probably good for the Russian people, definitely bad for Putin). It also means that, once the war in Ukraine ends and they join NATO, they essentially cannot be attacked by Russia again (good for Ukraine).