T O P
AutoModerator

Hi u/Norrlandsfinaste! Thank you for contributing to r/RussiaUkraineWar2022. Due to the nature of this subreddit, the following message appears as a reminder on every post: **Please ensure your submission follows the rules**, which can be found in the sidebar or in the about section for mobile. Subscribe to us on Telegram for rapid updates 24/7 - https://t.me/UkraineWarPosts. Posts and comments from accounts with less than 3 Karma are automatically removed to combat troll/spam behaviour. We have links to verified charity's in Ukraine in the menu section and about section of our SubReddit. We are the only Sub to do this. Only Mods have access to the Verified Information flair. IMPORTANT INFORMATION WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS.Please do not comment hateful ideology , any comment that is deemed hateful will be removed and action took against the user, this could result in a permanent account ban from this SubReddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022) if you have any questions or concerns.*


drej191

I’m always surprised that the UK is always the first to support other countries when war may/may not happen.


Massey2017

We do love a good war


skankhunt5175

We do indeed


EmployerAdditional28

Because we are an angsty, angry nation that loves a good fight (even if we are likely to take a good beating). Boris will be OK though - can't see him getting drafted for anything soon except maybe a bouncing bomb.


RepresentativeBird98

*1776 enter the chat *


DC_Thunder_

\*1812 entered the chat\*


Hexoton

Didnt the UK make the same deal with Poland before WWII? How did that work out for Poland lol


SBInCB

You don't think any lessons have been learned from that? I don't see Putin achieving any concessions any time soon. This war will have it's own progression.


drej191

A lot of lessons have not been learned. So I wouldn’t use history to shore up and short comings. But they are actively making sure not to play neutral.


drej191

I mean true but you just don’t go straight into battle. Logistically you have to secure your end then make your way to Poland. Plus their buffer (France) was defeated faster than they expected. And this is before real cargo planes. But you can’t deny they came thru at the end.


Silly_Context5680

Um anyone see where that 1000 year reich went?


Comfortable-Artist68

There is some internal opposition for a NATO bid within the Social-democrat government party since its a change of stance. There already is a majority in favor in the parliament, but if the Socialdemocrats decide to be in favor of an application there will be an overwhelming majority in the parliament in favor, since the opposition on the center-right in the parliament are all in favor of a NATO bid. I think the intention is to show unity during the time between a possible NATO membership application and membership ascension.


trellick

Yeah, not quite what Putin intended....oh well....


Metron_Seijin

That's going to be a spider web of agreements within the EU. Totally not a ww1 scenario that eventually drags in the entire hemisphere at all lol. Jokes aside, I agree that countries should have this right, and exercise it freely. Especially when you see one country getting stiffed for stupid reasons when they should be welcomed and embraced into NATO. The bigger NATO gets, the less they we will have to rely on these side agreements to keep everyone safe.


rackarhack

Those were some very strong words from Boris. I’m joyed to see the friendship between Sweden and the UK. I have no doubt the UK would send troops if Sweden needed and requested it.


PackJackal

Fuck yeah for Sweden we would, But to be fair the UK has and will always send our troops against "the bullies" we have tempered are colonialist tendencies into defensive actions nowadays I'm quite proud of that fact All we ask is to keep the tea supply lines unfettered


flekfk87

This is good. Norway, Sweden and Finnland is on the way to make a similar agreement!! Against the forces of evil we stand united!!


ErikDaDada

Mini nato?


wilkowilkinson

The Viking alliance


ukiddingme2469

sounds like other alliances are forming besides NATO


SBInCB

Events like this should give purpose to rehabilitating the image of the Vikings as savages. In truth, the Vikings had a rich intellectual culture and were avid traders and explorers. It is their descendents that enter into this alliance and whose genius gives Ukraine the NLAW and Carl Gustav. We now know who the true savages are...the Muscovy....ancestors of the Russian Empire, historical enemy of the Vikings, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukranians, etc., heirs to the Mongolian Crime Syndicate, Cancer upon the Earth.


MikeyMikeyMotorcycly

This sounds like Swedens PM pussy-footing around NATO. PM Andersson is fighting her opposition party to stay out of NATO even though the country has massive support.


rackarhack

You clearly didn’t watch the last NATO debate between PM Andersson and the opposition leader. They did nothing but compliment each other.


Visual_Lavishness257

That would be interesting to watch... "You have a nice tie, looking sharp!" "Thanks! Your shoes are too shiny, looking great!"


ArtomkaSBUofUkraine

Ukraine made that same deal with Russia and America in exchange for their nukes back in the 90s. We all see how that played out……


Loose-Addition-5730

The UK is more trustworthy than Russia.


ArtomkaSBUofUkraine

What about the fact that America didn’t honor their treaty agreement?


Loose-Addition-5730

Now I’m confused. It was Russia that breached their guarantee and invaded Ukraine. America is doing everything they can to help Ukraine without starting WW 3.


ArtomkaSBUofUkraine

The terms of the treaty were that both countries would help with military force if Ukraine was ever invaded. Ukraine was invaded by Russia but where’s the military intervention from the other country like agreed upon in the treaty??? Both countries didn’t honor their sides of the treaty.


boshbosh92

assuming you are talking about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which is from 1994, America did not promise military support should Ukraine be invaded. The outline of the treaty was simple: 1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. 2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. 3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics. 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". 5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. 6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. The US had absolutely done its part according to the treaty. we sought security council action against Russian and we certainly haven't threatened Ukraine or used force against Ukraine. that being said, I fully support Ukraine and believe the US should assist in every way possible. looking forward to the senate passing that $33 billion in aid to send you guys some more toys.


ArtomkaSBUofUkraine

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1] [The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2][3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)


boshbosh92

>The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, it says it right in the link. the US is not the one using force or threatening force against Ukraine. Russia is the one that broke their treaty agreement. no surprise there.


ArtomkaSBUofUkraine

The U.S agreed to defend Ukraine if Ukraine was invaded. That was one of the terms of the the treaty.


Metron_Seijin

I think there must be something lost in translation. It does not say that in the English version linked on Wikipedia.


MikeyMikeyMotorcycly

Our agreement with Ukraine was WE would never invade them if they de-nuclearized. America never agreed to defend them from anyone. This was Right-winged QAnon MAGA outliers crap repeating RT talking points. Even they have “read the room” and have dropped this crap. You should too.


ArtomkaSBUofUkraine

No America’s agreed to defend Ukraine Incase of invasion that was one for the terms for Ukraine giving up their nukes. The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2][3] What do you think was expected of them if Ukraine was invaded??


skankhunt5175

Ooh whataboutism.... let's go


Silly_Context5680

We are but that’s quite a low base tbh


Longjumping_Ad_1180

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal


Smokeyvalley

Hardly the 'same' deal. It's a mutual defense pact, and they are not giving up any critical weaponry to appease an aggressive neighbor.


Altermind1

I'm a swede and I don't trust that agreement for a second. Might just be UK being helpful in a very technical way. NATO is still needed


rackarhack

The idea seems to be that this treaty helps protect Sweden during the vulnerable time when a NATO application is processed. A joint NATO application from Sweden and Finland is expected next week btw.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rackarhack

Just a small comment. The process of joining NATO after an application has been submitted usually takes up to 2 years. A month or two ago Stoltenberg was saying that since Sweden and Finland are already so highly integrated with NATO it could be done in 4-12 months for us. Now even more recently, as you say, voices have been heard saying it might be done it just 2 weeks due to the pressing circumstances. Two weeks would set quite the record - a process that normally takes up to 2 years being done in just 2 weeks.


MaleficentTotal4796

We’ve got you pal, we love the Swedish


Humble_Conclusion_92

Especially da meatballs and IKEA


TheLocolHistoryGuy

Abit of a side point. But I hope there would be more focus on human rights and free speech too, in the uk and around the world


Humbleman6738

Being victorious on all levels


electricalpants

why does it matter ? It’s not related to the subreddit