One thing that isn't mentioned a lot in connection to this:
Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. Now we are allied and committed to defend each other. That's a huge thing for peace.
"It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history."
No it is not, that is incorrect. I really dont know where you get that from. And I dont agree that there have been a VERY violent history. Yes there have been wars, and all war are voilent, but not anything special for that era. Between 1200-1800 there was 15 wars. From 1-10 years and the majority of them lasted just 1 or 2 years.
And fun facts: Of the 15 wars Denmark started 11 of them and Sweden won 11 of them. Sug på den danskjävlar ;) Sweden is a peaceful coutry and that contry that have lived longest in the world without war, over 200 years.
All nordic countries are very similar in so many ways and our language are almost the same so we can understand, "almost" each (except the Danish people (rest of the nordic countries understand what I mean :), maybe that why there have been conflicts ;) We, the nordic countries see ourself more like a family, like siblings that love each outer but also love to tease each other :D
Don't forget he also raised awareness for Europe's dependency on Russian fossil fuels and accelerated there move to green energy across the world. What a guy!
It's crazy how there wasn't really ANY desire to join NATO before Russia showed, once again, that you can not trust them. The full scale of Ukraine really was the straw that broke the camel's back.
The exercise in team work has not been going great so far. It doesn't look like their is a path to victory in Ukraine and Europe is hesitant to commit any troops. There are some rumblings from Macron but most of Europe would prefer to send just enough weapons so Putin can't move forward and Ukraine can't push them out.
Does being in NATO obligate you to respond militarily if another member is attacked (as is commonly believed)? I failed to find this clause in the text last time I looked.
Edit: for everyone telling me to read article 5: I already have, hence this question. It says each member "will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary". That very much doesn't appear to obligate a military response, or any response at all.
To put it another way, the treaty really doesn't seem to mean much, so far as I can tell? Countries could already help each other out (or not) anyway... no?
FYI
"The head of the Russian General Staff Academy announced the threat of a “large-scale war in Europe”
The state agency RIA Novosti on Thursday reported on an article by Vladimir Zarudnitsky, head of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The article was written in the departmental magazine “Military Thought” and was “at the disposal” of the agency.
The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine into a large-scale war in Europe cannot be ruled out; the likelihood of Russia being drawn into new military conflicts is increasing, the main idea of the RIA Novosti article is retold.
“The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine cannot be ruled out - from the expansion of participants in the ‘proxy forces’ used for military confrontation with Russia to a large-scale war in Europe,” wrote General Zarudnitsky.
“The main source of military threats to our state is the anti-Russian policy of the United States and its allies, waging a new type of hybrid war in order to completely weaken Russia, limit its sovereignty and destroy territorial integrity,” the general was quoted by Reuters, which also noted that a high-ranking A Russian military officer warned of the threat of the conflict in Ukraine escalating into a full-scale war in Europe.
Zarudnitsky's comments come as the West struggles to help Ukraine with more weapons and money after a failed counteroffensive, Reuters noted."
I was about to say that it'd beat a bottle of wine from Sweden, anyway, but felt the need to fact-check my joke, and apparently Swedish wine is a thing!
The largest country on Earth murders people for merely expression an opinion and a massive chunk of our planet's geological wealth is funneled to fund wars of aggression.
This sovereign decision is in perfect alignment with Sweden's value and security needs. Yet, that the decision involved kissing the rings of other no-good men (Erdogan and Orban) tells me we need a paradigm shift.
Is it legal to crowdfund Putin's early retirement? I'm sure there's a number that will guarantee getting him out of office. Asking for a friend. ;-)
The EU is independent of the US. There's a difference between alliance and dependency (and EU isn't coextensive with European NATO, but they are pretty close.)
What does that practically mean though? Europe could stop Russia today, independent of the US. The first 18 months of ramping up production would be painful, but there is no question who would win.
Does Europe want to project force around the world? If so, why? It's much more cost-efficient to let the US taxpayer foot the majority of the bill for navigable seas.
I don't necessarily disagree as IMHO a diverse world that more accurately reflects the desires of local populations is a good thing, but I'd be curious to know why you would like the EU to seek independency from the US. What do you mean by that? Economic or more? Do you mean more home-grown tech companies for example?
For what? EU is plenty powerful enough to do that, but for what end. What would they do different that is significant. Sure there are minor differences in various policies and lots of disagreements, but overall our high level aims are too close and so the EU is better off not having to.
Have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex? If the EU wants to be independent they need to develop their own at great cost. (note that the US is already depending on EU's military industrial complex for various things, so you would also force the US to take those in-house) Which is why despite differences the US and EU are likely to remain allies for a long time - you cannot afford to go alone.
You're confused. The US doesn't control the EU in any way.
Or maybe you're not confused and you just object to the US and/or EU, but that's your problem, not theirs.
Terminology note: 'independency' is an archaic form of 'independence' which in this context means a self-governing state as opposed to being controlled by another state. This might be confused with 'interdependence' which is a natural reality of almost everything on earth, but especially those who cooperate and work and trade together.
> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term.
The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with the possible exception of countries that actually border Russia/Belarus).
In a way, sure. But it would also be nice if we were more codependent, in a way?
For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.
Irony: NATO maybe was considered of questionable necessity before Putin invaded Ukraine to supposedly contain NATO, which ended up being a gigantic ad for NATO. Now it's on track to become the de-facto EU military.
Putin is yet another fabulous counterexample for the anti-democracy crowd. He spent hundreds of thousands of Russian lives, hundreds of billions, tons of military hardware, and incurred sanctions to earn... a massive increase in the strength and prestige of one of his (again supposed) major adversaries. Not only is NATO growing but the EU is ramping up its own domestic military industries. Absolutely massive own-goal. Even if he "wins" in Ukraine to some extent it's a strategic net loss at this point.
Starting to wonder if China is going to do the same thing with Taiwan: invade and set gigantic amounts of money on fire and implode their economy. Even if they "win" the damage might far exceed the gain.
[+] [-] renegade-otter|2 years ago|reply
Nuclear states can and HAVE gone to wars - but no one wants to mess with the devastating conventional power of NATO.
After the recent gutting, Russia has a few dozen SU-34s that can fly. NATO has thousands of planes.
[+] [-] u320|2 years ago|reply
Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. Now we are allied and committed to defend each other. That's a huge thing for peace.
[+] [-] MasterYoda|2 years ago|reply
And fun facts: Of the 15 wars Denmark started 11 of them and Sweden won 11 of them. Sug på den danskjävlar ;) Sweden is a peaceful coutry and that contry that have lived longest in the world without war, over 200 years.
All nordic countries are very similar in so many ways and our language are almost the same so we can understand, "almost" each (except the Danish people (rest of the nordic countries understand what I mean :), maybe that why there have been conflicts ;) We, the nordic countries see ourself more like a family, like siblings that love each outer but also love to tease each other :D
[+] [-] baxtr|2 years ago|reply
So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?
[+] [-] gerikson|2 years ago|reply
By who?
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism
[+] [-] gitaarik|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikolay|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bilekas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pandemic_region|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krippe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] factorialboy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mountain_Skies|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlGrothendieck|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sschueller|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] richrichie|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Ygg2|2 years ago|reply
Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?
[+] [-] cactusplant7374|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dataflow|2 years ago|reply
Edit: for everyone telling me to read article 5: I already have, hence this question. It says each member "will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary". That very much doesn't appear to obligate a military response, or any response at all.
To put it another way, the treaty really doesn't seem to mean much, so far as I can tell? Countries could already help each other out (or not) anyway... no?
[+] [-] dralley|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whereismyacc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImHereToVote|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mudil|2 years ago|reply
The state agency RIA Novosti on Thursday reported on an article by Vladimir Zarudnitsky, head of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The article was written in the departmental magazine “Military Thought” and was “at the disposal” of the agency.
The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine into a large-scale war in Europe cannot be ruled out; the likelihood of Russia being drawn into new military conflicts is increasing, the main idea of the RIA Novosti article is retold.
“The possibility of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine cannot be ruled out - from the expansion of participants in the ‘proxy forces’ used for military confrontation with Russia to a large-scale war in Europe,” wrote General Zarudnitsky.
“The main source of military threats to our state is the anti-Russian policy of the United States and its allies, waging a new type of hybrid war in order to completely weaken Russia, limit its sovereignty and destroy territorial integrity,” the general was quoted by Reuters, which also noted that a high-ranking A Russian military officer warned of the threat of the conflict in Ukraine escalating into a full-scale war in Europe.
Zarudnitsky's comments come as the West struggles to help Ukraine with more weapons and money after a failed counteroffensive, Reuters noted."
[+] [-] seydor|2 years ago|reply
I wonder what was the debate in Sweden all this time (beyond the waiting for some dictators to give them the final approval)
[+] [-] rihards__|2 years ago|reply
Otherwise, congratulations. Same as Finland, Sweden is hige NET benefit for alliance, welcome friends!
[+] [-] iam-TJ|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ifyoubuildit|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikolay|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alecco|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] euroderf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philip1209|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellutussa|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apienx|2 years ago|reply
This sovereign decision is in perfect alignment with Sweden's value and security needs. Yet, that the decision involved kissing the rings of other no-good men (Erdogan and Orban) tells me we need a paradigm shift.
Is it legal to crowdfund Putin's early retirement? I'm sure there's a number that will guarantee getting him out of office. Asking for a friend. ;-)
[+] [-] sidcool|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnthrowaway0328|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrosenberg|2 years ago|reply
Does Europe want to project force around the world? If so, why? It's much more cost-efficient to let the US taxpayer foot the majority of the bill for navigable seas.
[+] [-] freedomben|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluGill|2 years ago|reply
Have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex? If the EU wants to be independent they need to develop their own at great cost. (note that the US is already depending on EU's military industrial complex for various things, so you would also force the US to take those in-house) Which is why despite differences the US and EU are likely to remain allies for a long time - you cannot afford to go alone.
[+] [-] dkjaudyeqooe|2 years ago|reply
Or maybe you're not confused and you just object to the US and/or EU, but that's your problem, not theirs.
Terminology note: 'independency' is an archaic form of 'independence' which in this context means a self-governing state as opposed to being controlled by another state. This might be confused with 'interdependence' which is a natural reality of almost everything on earth, but especially those who cooperate and work and trade together.
[+] [-] nordsieck|2 years ago|reply
That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term.
The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with the possible exception of countries that actually border Russia/Belarus).
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whereismyacc|2 years ago|reply
For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.
[+] [-] timka|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|2 years ago|reply
Putin is yet another fabulous counterexample for the anti-democracy crowd. He spent hundreds of thousands of Russian lives, hundreds of billions, tons of military hardware, and incurred sanctions to earn... a massive increase in the strength and prestige of one of his (again supposed) major adversaries. Not only is NATO growing but the EU is ramping up its own domestic military industries. Absolutely massive own-goal. Even if he "wins" in Ukraine to some extent it's a strategic net loss at this point.
Starting to wonder if China is going to do the same thing with Taiwan: invade and set gigantic amounts of money on fire and implode their economy. Even if they "win" the damage might far exceed the gain.
[+] [-] chasd00|2 years ago|reply
never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake
[+] [-] jasonvorhe|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gitaarik|2 years ago|reply
What does this sentence actually mean? What is an instrument of accession? What does it mean for it to be "deposited with the US government"?