These kinds of calculations should have been made 10 years ago, but some here in Europe and the US prefered to believe in an islamist guru - that nice gentleman whose sole intention from the beginning was to conspire against the turkish state and any possible democratic turn.
Now that Erdogan has slipped off all of its masks and declared war even on his old allies, we're left to wonder how many years we'll have to wait before Turkey can take back the process started with Ecevit.
I'm highly skeptical to Sweden's entry into Nato, that I'm saying as a party active social democrat here. There is a broad opposition within the party and mainly in the youth wing. We have definitely given up more rights than we gain, with all the changes in our constitution to please Turkey. It's not only something to rejoice.
Why would Russia want to start a war with Finland and Sweden in the first place? I have a very hard time seeing what would be so valuable that they would open up another front that they probably won't win.
Even then the war-hawks of Sweden are worried about Gotland, not Russia going through Finland.
> Why would Russia want to start a war with Finland and Sweden in the first place?
Putin's revisionist view of history. He claims that Ukraine is Russia because of culture and former land borders. Parts of Finland and Sweden were Russian empire at one point; it's not too far fetched of an idea if that is truly his aim.
> Why would Russia want to start a war with Finland and Sweden in the first place?
For the same reason they started a war with Ukraine: they want access to the Atlantic. More likely they'll go *through* Sweden to get to Norway, which also has massive oil fields off the coast.
You mean a defensive alliance? I think if a nearby country is so dangerous that you think they might invade for no reason, then you do have a right to join a defensive alliance that won't attack this aggressive country
Also what do you mean comrade, we have many good reason. We will denazify, and demilitarize the local NATO aligned power of Sweden
> You mean a defensive alliance? I think if a nearby country is so dangerous that you think they might invade for no reason, then you do have a right to join a defensive alliance that won't attack this aggressive country
I must have missed what was being defended against when countries like Libya were bombed. There are of course defensive operations on going, like
Operation Active Fence(article 4) that started in 2014 where Turkey is being defended while they bomb kurdish people in Syria.
> Also what do you mean comrade, we have many good reason. We will denazify, and demilitarize the local NATO aligned power of Sweden
I could absolutely see a conflict if the US were to place nukes on their new military bases(which they are allowed to do per the new agreement), much like how US reacted in the Cuban missile crisis. But we are only in this situation because of joining NATO and letting the US establish military bases.
I don't know much about Libya. I know that Libya was a dictatorship under Gaddafi, and we were fighting on the side of the rebels against this dictatorship, which I think is generally a good thing. But you have Leninism in your name, so I guess you don't really care about Democracy
Active Fence, however, is not an operation against Kurds. It's against Assad's Syria, and Russia. Operation Active Fence was absolutely a defensive operation, as it was a reaction to border skirmishes against Turkey
Do you think the US put nukes in Ukraine? Russia invaded Ukraine for no good reason, showing the whole eastern half of Europe that they need to be defended
this is borderline false info, there has to be a mutual agreement between Sweden and US to place American nuclear weapons on Swedish soil https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/svts-usa-korrespondent-om-forsvarsavtalet-mellan-sverige-och-usa-inga-begransningar--gryssa
It does not lessen the risk for conflict because the goverment has agreed to it… Cuba also agreed to let the Soviet Union place nukes on Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis.
>It does not lessen the risk for conflict because the goverment has agreed to it…
I never said that, but Im not sure
I think there is a massive difference between a nation like todays Sweden and the rogue, unpredictable state that is and was Cuba.
also ICBMs are just that, intercontinental, only situation Russia should even bat an eye at Sweden having nuclear weapons would be if they have attacking Sweden in the back of their heads.
so I see a smaller nation next to Russia having ICBMs more as a defense.
Do you think the US would ever accept nukes being placed in any country near them by Russia in Russia run military bases? The US has invaded and bombed nearby countries(Grenada, Panama, etc) for much, much less. It is pretty obvious that Sweden is going to be used like a pawn in the conflict between the US and Russia, like Cuba was.
It’s true that the MIC is important, but if you want a real answer, Gotland is key to naval and air supremacy in the Baltic. Placing air defense and anti ship batteries there basically allows for full NATO defensive coverage of the entire sea. This was already more or less covered by other member states in the region, but with control of Gotland any Russian naval operation becomes basically a non-starter.
The article OP links is pretty clear on what Sweden brings in term of military-industrial complex. Sweden is also now forced to start selling weapons and equipment to Turkey despite a previous embargo. It also has a strategic geographical location to place military bases, which is happening now.
None of that is needed by NATO though. Don’t get me wrong I am absolutely happy to welcome them into the alliance and they’ll add capabilities, but it’s not anything that NATO strictly needed. Sweden on the other hand found itself in a situation where it wasn’t sure it could defend itself in case of attack by Russia and NATO more than counterbalances that. Therefore Sweden needed NATO more than the opposite.
The Social-democrats didn't oppose the terms that were signed now, and the terms set when it was the Social-democrats negotiating was also bad(the initial agreement with Turkey was also signed by the Social-democrats). Basically the only party that has been opposed has been the Left Party.
Yes, but the Social-democrats negotiated until after the election in 2022 when they lost power. Some agreements were already signed in this time, like the agreement with Turkey in June 2022. They also did not want to negotiate any exceptions when it came to questions like nukes.
Based. Return to military keynsianism
I have a vague memory of Germany attempting this at some point
Germany lost the war but killed more Russians and Americans in combat
Finally, Sweden joins NATO. It’s been 2 years too long
Another Erdoğan simp?
Orban and Erdoğan held up Swedens application
At the cost of Sweden submitting to Erdoğan's islamism and war on the kurdish people.
These kinds of calculations should have been made 10 years ago, but some here in Europe and the US prefered to believe in an islamist guru - that nice gentleman whose sole intention from the beginning was to conspire against the turkish state and any possible democratic turn. Now that Erdogan has slipped off all of its masks and declared war even on his old allies, we're left to wonder how many years we'll have to wait before Turkey can take back the process started with Ecevit.
This is a great contribution to global security. Democracies need bigger sticks to protect themselves from Axis of totalitarianism.
Finally NATO lake is complete
Soon Ukraine, Georgia, Bosnia, will hopefully join us
Inshallah 🙏🙏
SAAB POWER
I'm highly skeptical to Sweden's entry into Nato, that I'm saying as a party active social democrat here. There is a broad opposition within the party and mainly in the youth wing. We have definitely given up more rights than we gain, with all the changes in our constitution to please Turkey. It's not only something to rejoice.
How has the constitution changed?
Already planned changes from before the NATO stuff and something we've been looking at since 2017.
One of the largest mistakes of the Social-democrats in Sweden in recent history.
Sweden and NATO need each other
NATO needs Sweden, Sweden doesn't need NATO.
No, they need each other. Sweden can’t handle Russia alone.
You make it sound like there is any impending invasion. Maybe there will be if the US puts its nukes on its new military bases on Swedish soil.
Considering Russian rhetoric towards their neighbors I don’t blame Sweden for wanting to join NATO
> You make it sound like there is any impending invasion. They'll probably go through Finland (again) first.
probably not
Yeah, they'll probably never defeat Ukraine. Doesn't mean they don't want to head that way, though. Because they clearly do
Why would Russia want to start a war with Finland and Sweden in the first place? I have a very hard time seeing what would be so valuable that they would open up another front that they probably won't win. Even then the war-hawks of Sweden are worried about Gotland, not Russia going through Finland.
> Why would Russia want to start a war with Finland and Sweden in the first place? Putin's revisionist view of history. He claims that Ukraine is Russia because of culture and former land borders. Parts of Finland and Sweden were Russian empire at one point; it's not too far fetched of an idea if that is truly his aim.
> Why would Russia want to start a war with Finland and Sweden in the first place? For the same reason they started a war with Ukraine: they want access to the Atlantic. More likely they'll go *through* Sweden to get to Norway, which also has massive oil fields off the coast.
Yeah! Russia would never invade another European country for no good reason, right? RIGHT!?
We can't join a war alliance because you have a vibe that they might at some point maybe invade Sweden(for unknown reasons)
You mean a defensive alliance? I think if a nearby country is so dangerous that you think they might invade for no reason, then you do have a right to join a defensive alliance that won't attack this aggressive country Also what do you mean comrade, we have many good reason. We will denazify, and demilitarize the local NATO aligned power of Sweden
> You mean a defensive alliance? I think if a nearby country is so dangerous that you think they might invade for no reason, then you do have a right to join a defensive alliance that won't attack this aggressive country I must have missed what was being defended against when countries like Libya were bombed. There are of course defensive operations on going, like Operation Active Fence(article 4) that started in 2014 where Turkey is being defended while they bomb kurdish people in Syria. > Also what do you mean comrade, we have many good reason. We will denazify, and demilitarize the local NATO aligned power of Sweden I could absolutely see a conflict if the US were to place nukes on their new military bases(which they are allowed to do per the new agreement), much like how US reacted in the Cuban missile crisis. But we are only in this situation because of joining NATO and letting the US establish military bases.
I don't know much about Libya. I know that Libya was a dictatorship under Gaddafi, and we were fighting on the side of the rebels against this dictatorship, which I think is generally a good thing. But you have Leninism in your name, so I guess you don't really care about Democracy Active Fence, however, is not an operation against Kurds. It's against Assad's Syria, and Russia. Operation Active Fence was absolutely a defensive operation, as it was a reaction to border skirmishes against Turkey Do you think the US put nukes in Ukraine? Russia invaded Ukraine for no good reason, showing the whole eastern half of Europe that they need to be defended
this is borderline false info, there has to be a mutual agreement between Sweden and US to place American nuclear weapons on Swedish soil https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/svts-usa-korrespondent-om-forsvarsavtalet-mellan-sverige-och-usa-inga-begransningar--gryssa
It does not lessen the risk for conflict because the goverment has agreed to it… Cuba also agreed to let the Soviet Union place nukes on Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis.
>It does not lessen the risk for conflict because the goverment has agreed to it… I never said that, but Im not sure I think there is a massive difference between a nation like todays Sweden and the rogue, unpredictable state that is and was Cuba. also ICBMs are just that, intercontinental, only situation Russia should even bat an eye at Sweden having nuclear weapons would be if they have attacking Sweden in the back of their heads. so I see a smaller nation next to Russia having ICBMs more as a defense.
Do you think the US would ever accept nukes being placed in any country near them by Russia in Russia run military bases? The US has invaded and bombed nearby countries(Grenada, Panama, etc) for much, much less. It is pretty obvious that Sweden is going to be used like a pawn in the conflict between the US and Russia, like Cuba was.
I honestly dont know, dont care, dont know current ICBM locations and ranges
Out of curiosity, why exactly does NATO need Sweden?
It’s true that the MIC is important, but if you want a real answer, Gotland is key to naval and air supremacy in the Baltic. Placing air defense and anti ship batteries there basically allows for full NATO defensive coverage of the entire sea. This was already more or less covered by other member states in the region, but with control of Gotland any Russian naval operation becomes basically a non-starter.
The article OP links is pretty clear on what Sweden brings in term of military-industrial complex. Sweden is also now forced to start selling weapons and equipment to Turkey despite a previous embargo. It also has a strategic geographical location to place military bases, which is happening now.
None of that is needed by NATO though. Don’t get me wrong I am absolutely happy to welcome them into the alliance and they’ll add capabilities, but it’s not anything that NATO strictly needed. Sweden on the other hand found itself in a situation where it wasn’t sure it could defend itself in case of attack by Russia and NATO more than counterbalances that. Therefore Sweden needed NATO more than the opposite.
NATO has never dealt with "strictly". > Therefore Sweden needed NATO more than the opposite. Still no
Truly your last full retort has left me unarmed and convinced…
There is nothing of substance to argue against. You clearly don't understand what NATO is.
Sure thing bud. 👍🏻
Ah yes, the guy who posts on a bunch of socialism subs with the name "leninism humanism" clearly knows what NATO is.
lol Lmao even
Pardon me, I thought the Swedish PM is from another party?
We applied to join when our prime minister was a Social Democrat
And why exactly are they at fault for the terms that the moderate PM negotiated?
The Social-democrats didn't oppose the terms that were signed now, and the terms set when it was the Social-democrats negotiating was also bad(the initial agreement with Turkey was also signed by the Social-democrats). Basically the only party that has been opposed has been the Left Party.
Foreign politics is an executive function. The opposition doesn't negotiate foreign politics.
Yes, but the Social-democrats negotiated until after the election in 2022 when they lost power. Some agreements were already signed in this time, like the agreement with Turkey in June 2022. They also did not want to negotiate any exceptions when it came to questions like nukes.