Sweden votes yes to controversial Nato deal

[PizzaSHARK]

I think Sweden should look into rebuilding their own capabilities instead of shifting the defensive responsibilities over to someone else, i.e NATO. But I guess it's easier to do so rather than face the real issues...

Still glad that the Finnish public hasn't bought into this latest Russophobia and is still overwhelmingly negative towards NATO, but if Sweden eventually joins I fear we're likely to follow anyway.

You're basically Sweden's military as it is. What do you think would happen to Sweden if you told Putin or whoever that they were free to come on through whenever they'd like?

Same thing a lot of countries do in regards to US military. Why spend money on their own military when they can have the US do the lion's share of the work? Of course, then they also bitch about the US spending so much on defense and having such a large military presence

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's a one-sided deal favoring the US. Sweden has nothing to gain by becoming US lapdogs.

You'd rather be the EU's lapdogs, then?

Sarcasm? just curious

Hey, you know what they say about Swedes

[Skroe]

You're basically Sweden's military as it is. What do you think would happen to Sweden if you told Putin or whoever that they were free to come on through whenever they'd like?

Same thing a lot of countries do in regards to US military. Why spend money on their own military when they can have the US do the lion's share of the work? Of course, then they also bitch about the US spending so much on defense and having such a large military presence

I mean, realistically, there is no way Sweden could ever do true US-scale military spending on its own. Arguably only the whole of the EU could.

To pay for US defense, the Federal Government draws from 243 million taxpayers out of a population of 320 million. Sweden by contrast, has something like 7.5 million taxpayers. out of a population of 9.5 million. One reason the US is able to do so much is because it's so goddamn big and has a lot of revenue generating capacity. It's worth noting that the whole of the EU, put togther, is the world's second largest spender on defense. More than China or Russia, at $300 billion a year. That's less than half ours, but at the same time, the US has a global security strategy, and the Europe has largely a regional one.

It's worth noting that even with that, Sweden has produced some truly impressive hardware, as have other small countries. The Swedish Gripen is one of the most advanced Generation 4++ fighters in the world, and it has a reputation for world leading ease of maintainanability, with an internal layout optimized for ease of reapair. The Norwegian Naval Strike Missile by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace is probably the best in the world at what it is, and the US is very wisely buying it. European F-35s armed with the MBDA Meteor will be fearsome air superiority fighters, better than any US F-35 armed with the inferior AIM-120D. I mean it's worth noting that until 2012, the US had barely spent any money on munitions (except the Small Diameter Bomb family) in years, but Europe kept developing newer and better things to shoot.

Europe gets a bad wrap. They should do more, but the way to do it is not to demean them. Americans would be wise to treat our friends and allies with respect. We need them more than we need their stuff.

You'd rather be the EU's lapdogs, then?

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, NATO has automatic first-look rights to all European security, so EU security only kicks in after NATO formally passes on it.

[Deleted]

More NATO expansionism. But nope, it's totally Russia who wants to start WW3. Also Sweden signing this deal while their country is getting destroyed by immigration is hillarious. Top notch priorities.

[Charge me Doctor]

Why is it bad? - I mean I'm not sold on Nato - but it is what we have, and having this treaty makes it so we don't have to have a round of negotiations for every single joint exercise.
Its essentially opening a tab.

Because things like "we are nato soldiers and give 0 fucks about your country, have all the immunities to your law since we are protected by this piece of paper"

[Uzkin]

NATO is coming once the Soviet Era ass kissers have died en mass of old age, and there is nothing you can do about it.

This is just wishful thinking on your part. With the Ukrainian events, the NATO supporters saw their chance and started a massive fearmongering and misinformation campaign in order to make the people feel insecure and afraid of Russia but, as it turns out, the Finnish people are not so easily fooled. It is now obvious that the team-NATO plan failed; the healthy majority of Finns is still against the membership. The best thing is, our president has quite firmly established that the issue of membership cannot be decided somewhere in the cabinets behind closed doors but must be subject to referendum. This ensures that we will be free of NATO in the foreseeable future.

[Deleted]

Because things like "we are nato soldiers and give 0 fucks about your country, have all the immunities to your law since we are protected by this piece of paper"

well that was the case for every previous drill too?

- - - Updated - - -

This is just wishful thinking on your part. With the Ukrainian events, the NATO supporters saw their chance and started a massive fearmongering and misinformation campaign in order to make the people feel insecure and afraid of Russia but, as it turns out, the Finnish people are not so easily fooled. It is now obvious that the team-NATO plan failed; the healthy majority of Finns is still against the membership. The best thing is, our president has quite firmly established that the issue of membership cannot be decided somewhere in the cabinets behind closed doors but must be subject to referendum. This ensures that we will be free of NATO in the foreseeable future.

It doesn't actually matter - Finland is unlikely to join, because it wouldn't be 'wise', people wont like it, What have you - They wont join, until Sweden forces them in by joining, Its not really a choice you are going to get to make yourself.

[Mihalik]

It's worked for Switzerland for hundreds of years.

Switzerland's success in remaining Neutral has more to do with Geography than it has to do with it's politics.

Switzerland is a mountainous region that isn't on a any key commercial or military transit routes, offers no strategic reserves or resources and doesn't provide any strategic advantages. Nor is it bordered by hostile powers.

Sweden isn't so lucky.

One of the very first major engagements in WW2, both ground, air and naval after the invasion of Poland were fought in Scandinavia, and for good reason.

[Santti]

I think we (Finland) ought to join NATO, really. I'm going to be honest here. I have no idea what it would cost us, but I don't trust Russian government at all. They have always been completely full of shit.

Russia wouldn't like us joining NATO, that much is obvious. But the added protection of NATO is what we need when you have a rapid bulldog on angel dust as your neighbor.

(Note that I'm criticizing the Russian Government, not the people. I'm sure the people are fine).

In before "russophobe".

[Shalcker]

I think we (Finland) ought to join NATO, really. I'm going to be honest here. I have no idea what it would cost us, but I don't trust Russian government at all. They have always been completely full of shit.

Well, if they always have been like that, yet you still doing ok without NATO, what exactly makes you think that joining NATO would improve anything?

Russia wouldn't like us joining NATO, that much is obvious. But the added protection of NATO is what we need when you have a rapid bulldog on angel dust as your neighbor.

Do you really need "added protection"?

To have realistic chance of defending from potential invasion "across the border" until NATO help arrives, you would need to maintain half an army on constant readiness; it's not as easy as "just sign up to NATO".

[Shalcker]

Educate yourself. Stopping Russia at the border is not the strategy that would be used in any case.

So, you're gaining exactly nothing other then "more certain help"?

Baltics are in NATO as full members for many years already, yet for some reason they still don't feel safe. Why would you be any different?

[kaid]

I'm torn. One one hand i don't want to play in to the Russophobian narrative they are pushing on us but on the other hand it was just a matter of time before we ratified a stronger agreement with Nato since we've been a puppet state to the United states since the cold war. Might as well just go all in at this point. Not like we'd escape getting nuked in any case.

Unfortunately it's a case of if you don't have enough population or military to defend yourself from one potentially hostile nation do you get into bed directly with the other major power or do you not do it and just hope should you need it that they will intervene on your side anyway.

[Shalcker]

The purpose of joining NATO would be to make the threshold of Russia engaging in fuckery higher by making sure that the group that Russia would engage in fuckery with, will be larger.

And... again, Baltics? Why do they don't feel safe despite being in NATO?

You're suggesting that to feel safer, right?

We're perfectly capable of fucking with Russia if it ever decided to fuck with us, at great cost for sure, but still enough that Russia has to rethink it once or twice if the cost is acceptable for them, but I'd like to make sure they had to rethink thrice or even quince before engaging in said fuckery.

Well, what exactly would NATO change then? Other then that in case of real conflict making 100% certain you'll be attacked?

It would seem your threat level will increase rather then decrease from this decision.

[Skroe]

Well, if they always have been like that, yet you still doing ok without NATO, what exactly makes you think that joining NATO would improve anything?

Do you really need "added protection"?

To have realistic chance of defending from potential invasion "across the border" until NATO help arrives, you would need to maintain half an army on constant readiness; it's not as easy as "just sign up to NATO".

There are 680,000 anti-personel and anti-tank land mines stored in Germany, ready to be air dropped from almost any NATO fighter aircraft.

Russians crossing into NATO territory will be extremely expensive for Russia.

Besides, consider the bigger picture. NATO has ~1.8 million active duty troops in Europe. The US has roughly another million elsewhere in the world, with another 800,000 auxiliaries after that.

Eastern Europe is too damn big for the 700,000 man Russian Military, or the 2 million man reserves, almost the entirey of whom are conscripts who serve(d) on 1 year mandatory service, and are not battle hardened professionals.

Russia would be too spread in 2016, to control the whole of Europe, and NATO would make it very expensive for them to do so.

NATO would not stop Russia at the border... likely anywhere. Finland. The Baltics. But the further Russia stretches it'self from Russian territory, the easier it will be for NATO to start cutting them to pieces bit by bit until US reinforcements arrive.

This by the way, has always been the plan. NATO forces would do a tactical withdrawal to safer territory, slow the Russian advance where possible, regroup and counter strike.

Of course if Russia ever step foot into NATO territory, they could wave goodbye, for good, to Kalingrad. The conflict's resolution would see that taken from Russia forever. Do you really think a slice of Russian territory between Poland and Germany would be allowed after the conflict? Like hell it would.

- - - Updated - - -

And... again, Baltics? Why do they don't feel safe despite being in NATO?

You're suggesting that to feel safer, right?

Well, what exactly would NATO change then? Other then that in case of real conflict making 100% certain you'll be attacked?

It would seem your threat level will increase rather then decrease from this decision.

The Baltics don't feel safe because NATO has been dragging its feet until the last year and a half in setting up defense infrastructure in Eastern Europe. Let's be clear, that is the reason. Because NATO didn't want to upset Russia by moving forces Eastward. Well that is happening now, thanks to your President and all the wonderful things he's done. In time, they'll feel safer.

Finland partnering with NATO was inevitable anyway. If Russia attacked Estonia, it means that no country in Europe is safe. Sweden's had its foot in the door for years, even during the Cold War, because it would throw in its lot with NATO if national survival was at stake.

NATO can fight Russia and win. Without NATO, you can only hurt Russia but not beat it.

[zephid]

Being militarily neutral can be the riskiest position, it depends on who is likely to invade and who is likely to ultimately win.

But we are not really neutral anymore since we are a part of EU.

[bloodmoth13]

http://www.thelocal.se/20160525/swed...sial-nato-deal


This was a pretty shit decision by them. ._.

Why cant european countries make decisions that benefit them isntead of the US anymore -_-

Real dissapointment imo

[Queen of Hamsters]

Trust me, people that constantly read topics on forums are more aware of the problems Sweden face than actual Swedes. You know i'd probably not even know there was a refugee problem in Sweden if people didn't keep telling me.

At this point it feels like there are more people from other countries that have opinions about what we should do that actual Swedes, and they judge harsly when most of us just sit here going "Wtf?". Those "Swedishposter" you mentioned earlier are just the loud idiots you find in any country. If you were to make an agenda against say France about how their french ways is the work of the devil or whatever you'd find the same response.

If it makes you feel any better, this NATO change will probably not even be noticed by over 95% of the population. Like I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't have noticed hadn't someone told me.

Amen.

People love having opinions about shit they're not even affected by in the first place, but it's quite funny how non-Swedes and people as far away as the US can be so afraid when Swedes are not.

[Fojos]

It's worked for Switzerland for hundreds of years.

And Sweden for more than 200 years. This blind trust in NATO is insane.

If it makes you feel any better, this NATO change will probably not even be noticed by over 95% of the population. Like I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't have noticed hadn't someone told me.

Because you're one of the people who's happy living in ignorance in ivory towers.

Nothing more annoying than people who vote when they don't even give a shit about politics or anything at all really (except pleasure).

[Skroe]

Why cant european countries make decisions that benefit them isntead of the US anymore -_-

Real dissapointment imo

How does this benefit us exactly?

I mean to be blunt, Sweden is a country very far from us, and reasonably isolated from the US's military infrastructure in Europe (the preopositioned weapons stockpiles are in the UK, Germany, Italy, the Nertherlands, Turkey, and Norway). It has "just" 9 million people. Frankly, it would be a pain the neck to defend from an American perspective. It's not like the US could easily drive tanks from Germany to Sweden.

The biggest theoretical benefit of Sweden in NATO would be the US gaining access to Gotland, but Sweden would have to independently make the decision to militarize it first (and it absolutely should). That would be a big coup for the US, but it's not like continental security is dependent on it.

[Kellhound]

How does this benefit us exactly?

I mean to be blunt, Sweden is a country very far from us, and reasonably isolated from the US's military infrastructure in Europe (the preopositioned weapons stockpiles are in the UK, Germany, Italy, the Nertherlands, Turkey, and Norway). It has "just" 9 million people. Frankly, it would be a pain the neck to defend from an American perspective. It's not like the US could easily drive tanks from Germany to Sweden.

The biggest theoretical benefit of Sweden in NATO would be the US gaining access to Gotland, but Sweden would have to independently make the decision to militarize it first (and it absolutely should). That would be a big coup for the US, but it's not like continental security is dependent on it.

Sweden has returned a permanent garrison to Gotland.

[Theinquisition]

How does this benefit us exactly?

I mean to be blunt, Sweden is a country very far from us, and reasonably isolated from the US's military infrastructure in Europe (the preopositioned weapons stockpiles are in the UK, Germany, Italy, the Nertherlands, Turkey, and Norway). It has "just" 9 million people. Frankly, it would be a pain the neck to defend from an American perspective. It's not like the US could easily drive tanks from Germany to Sweden.

The biggest theoretical benefit of Sweden in NATO would be the US gaining access to Gotland, but Sweden would have to independently make the decision to militarize it first (and it absolutely should). That would be a big coup for the US, but it's not like continental security is dependent on it.

I think it's funny when people ask "well whats in it for Europe"

Well, not having to worry about the neighborhood drunk beating your wife in the backyard is a start (putin)