1y ago

Sweden officially joins NATO, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality

apnews.com

Antiwar @lemmy.ca

bumphot @lemy.lol

1y ago

Sweden officially joins NATO, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality

apnews.com /article/sweden-nato-us-russia-ukraine-8372bc866c8ddcf42d2b8209fa5cd2b1

334 comments

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.
- I think this haterred towards Putin blinded most of us to let governments increase their authorariansim. Like in US after 9/11. Of course Putin is dangerous, but he can't even win a war in a small country right next to his. Lost more troops then Ukraine. Meanwhile NATO expansion across the World and US influance is truely scary and unprecedented. Most of the wars in World are started by NATO counties and here we don't hear about is as much.
  All the invasions of Iran, Afganistan, Vietnam, Syria, etc where unjustfied invasions just like Ukraine and in case of Palestine, far worse. Yet, media successfully is pointing our focus on a single war in Ukraine where Russia has made no advencments and is clearly inferior military power. It reminds me of 9/11, when fear from a small group of terrorist gave the government power to spy on all of its citizens, run torture camp in Guantanamo and remove citizens rights one by one.
  
  Ah, yes, the scary defense-only alliance. Purely by design it doesn't have the lawful capacity to do any of the things you said, and single members (US or UK) don't represent it.
  Ah yes, no advancements in Ukraine where 1/3 of the country is under occupier control and in entrenched positions.
  
  In is defensive only on paper. In reality it is NATO weapons that supply wars in Middle East. Joining NATO isn't just mutual defense, you need to sign a lot of other requirements that inevitably gets you under strong influance of US military and finances. Check out military intervantions of NATO, they are all offensive, no one ever attacked a NATO country, they are too strong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations None of these counties they invaded where part of NATO, Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, Bosina, Libya.
  Laws don't matter when you have the military power. Laws only apply to the weak. Powerful countires (and people) don't protect them selves with laws, since they have the military. When Assange and Manning published US war crimes, militry officials didnt go to jails, but they, whistlblowers and journalists did. Don't fall for the laws for a second, they don't apply to them.
  
  You are not wrong that a lot of shady things can happen with military power. It is a fine general statement.
  But with regards to NATO, I think you are misinformed (or mixed up?). If all those were invasions (and NATO is so strong), I don't see how any of these countries could be independent countries now.
  
  They are not independent, that is the point. NATO military is still present in most of them or have puppet governments or are still at war.
  
  Source?
  
  There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other "past"-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire). There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Obviously imperialist didn't like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the "developing country" to excuse them staying there while they "develop". Never actually leaving of course.
  
  You're conflating a lot of topics in your discourse but you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Yes, many countries have military bases overseas. That is not controversial or new. They are used as means to expediently deploy troops and assets to various global positions. The fact that some of these countries happen to be part of NATO has nothing to do with your previous position.
  
  It is more then just having a base. They often run the whole country. I simply tried to find a single list for all of it, but if you look into these cases, one by one, you can see what I mean. Take French troops in Africa, they are collonizers that never left and their government can't kick them out. Take NATO troops in Kosovo, they are completley dependent on US support to exist. Or Israel as well. Or many other places in Middle East. These are not volontery military presence in these locations, they are invasions which people can't get rid of, either under threat of antoher force taking over or because they just wont leave.
  
  You deserve some sort of award for most incoherent post ever with this shit.
  
  You're doing it again and at this point it feels intentional. You're taking five different things that are unrelated and mixing them but throwing enough vague terms hoping that something will stick:
  French troops in Africa
  Nato in Kosovo
  Or Israel (whatever that means)
  Or many other places in middle east (whatever that means)
  This is a gish gallop
  
  Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So, link something else.
  
  Not defending the probable Russian shill, but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source. What it is not is a primary source. But every claim has a source whose reliability can be assessed (and what counts as reliable is going to vary from person to person). So, no, if I'm writing an essay or a formal document, I'm not going to cite Wikipedia. But if I'm arguing with strangers on the internet, Wikipedia is a fairly credible place to start backing up your claims.
  
  You can say that for literarly anything. Wikipedia has sources for every claim. Are you dispututing that NATO was in those countries. I have seen some of those troops in those countries with my own eyes.
  
  Russian weapons supply a lot of wars in the Middle East too. Russia funded the 10/7 Hamas attack. Russia gassed and bombed a lot of civilians in Syria. Russian mercenaries are keeping the civil war going in Libya, as well as couping lots of governments across African countries in the past year
  
  I am not defending Russia. They do horrible things as well, but it is no excuse for our governments to do these things too. And they do it a lot more. As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry. Israel government funded Hamas and let 10/7 happen on purpose to justify genocide, they even brag about it.
  
  As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry.
  Your posts on the matter reads like insane propaganda as well.
  
  Iraq, Afganistan
  The US called on NATO following an attack on them. The idea was to fight those who had attacked the US, which is in the purview of a defensive alliance. Of course that didn't end up being the reality because the bush admin lied about Iraq.
  Kosovo, Bosina
  This was not defensive, you're correct. But it was instead to stop a genocide of Muslim people by Serbia. Kosovo exists because of NATO involving themselves to stop genocide.
  Libya.
  This was a UN coalition to aid rebel groups.
  
  Well if you claim that you are attacked by "Terrorism" and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive. Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to "save" them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don't suit your interests.
  
  I think this haterred towards Putin blinded most of us to let governments increase their authorariansim.
  Don't you think this haterred towards Putin caused by increasing authorariansim of my country's government? Because Putin is fucking head of it.
  Of course Putin is dangerous, but he can't even win a war in a small country right next to his.
  I don't know what is (not) concerning to you, but for me Good Uncle Voenkom that will send me to die in trenches for Stability™ of Putin's yachts is concerning enough.
  
  Stay safe comrade. The rest of the world prays that the Russian people will know freedom rather than authoritarianism.
  
  Thank you
  
  Because Putin is fucking head of it.
  Thank you for taking a risk by posting here and speaking truth to power. People like you give me hope.
  
  Your people are Putin's first victims. I hope we'll one day have cooperation and peace between Russia and the West, as proper friendly neighbors. You guys deserve so much better than Putin.
  
  Thank you for kind words
  
  You're more than welcome.
  
  In what way has the Russian Invasion of Ukraine led to more authoritarianism among NATO member states?
  
  This is so lazy.
  
  The irony.
  Did you fall asleep or get bored writing the rest of your sentence?
  
  No I find that perfection is not when you have nothing more to add, but when there's nothing left to take away.
  
  It is in regards to this article that we are talking about these things. NATO membership grew after this Russian invasion. Even from countries that are under no obvious imidiate danger.
  
  That is not authoritarianism
  All neighbours of a country that is interested in invading their neighbours are in immediate danger
  
  Since when is Sweden a neibour of Russia?
  
  ???? Land bordering one another and neighbors are not the same thing.
  
  Then anyone can be a neighbor.
  
  No?
  
  Not a direct neighbour, but they're in the neighbourhood that is the Baltic Sea.
  
  Russia is not known for their naval invasions.
  
  (͡•_ ͡• )
  
  There's a difference between NATO countries and NATO the organisation.
  The United States would be going around the world starting wars regardless of whether it's in NATO or not. Got to feed that industrial military complex
  
  I don't know what their deal is exactly (and they clearly have an agenda), but do you really think Lemmy is big enough to be a target for paid actors?
  
  Send people to all corners of the Internet to sow your pro-Russian stance. And if not paid, I would say a Putin fan, someone being threatened by the Russian government, or just a troll. Take your pick. All are possible.
  
  I think Putin is horrible, I never said otherwise, not a fan. And a troll doesn't post sources, you however are a troll. You just call everyone who critiques NATO a Russian bot. You are either a troll or completly insane
  
  Never called you a bot.
  You have no link to a source in the thread I was replying to.
  Anyone who looks at the things Putin has done in the last two years and thinks that NATO is worse is the one who is insane.
  
  Targeting a smaller, receptive audience is actually better than going after larger and more diverse ones. With the later you're more likely to get called out for your bullshit.
  The former is more likely to listen, and a small echo-chamber will eliminate dissidents. That relatively small core group will gladly modify the message to better appeal to the local/culture they belong to, and spread it wide-and-far while obscuring the original source.
  It's a highly effective strategy: look at Qanon. It started on 8chan of all places, with a tiny userbase behind it.
  
  Of course no one is paid to post on lemmy, this person is a lunatic that thinks anyone who critisizes their own government must be a Russian spy.
  
  Removed under rule 5, you're free to attack their content, but not them personally.
  "Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!"
  
  Why did you remove my comment and not the one where the poster called me insane?
  
  One got reported, the other didn't. If I had seen it, I would have removed it too.
  
  Fine, I accept that, but what exactly did I say that caused the post to be removed? All I said was he was probably a paid posted. How is that not being civil?
  
  You can see your modlog here:
  https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=1641922
  "This poster is a paid Russian sympathizer. Baby account, bad English, and only posted in posts regarding this topic."
  Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). **It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members.**Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  Attacking other users, which you did three times in one comment, is not allowed.
  
  Yeah, no. Your interpretation is incorrect in my opinion.
  Yes, it was a baby account. Only 6 hours old. The icon next to their name is a baby. How can you punish me for something the site does as well?
  Also, the English the person used did not sound like it was English as a first language.
  Lastly, let's take a look at your verbiage.
  Perjorative: expressing contempt or disapproval
  Calling a person a paid Russian sympathizer does not meet this definition. He was acting as if Russia is the victim in this story. I was saying what he was.
  I would appreciate if when reports are made, they are actually looked at and not blindly removed.
  
  calling another user a paid russian sympathizer is obviously pejorative.
  
  But they also influence NATO organizations through various requirements of joining the NATO so that in the practice, they are involved. NATO as an organization has participated in mmultiple invasitions around the World, it is on the Wikipedia page. All of their military involvements where in non-NATO countries. Nobody ever attacked a NATO country, they never did a defensive war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations
  
  they never did a defensive war
  Great success then.
  Only non-Nato countries have to fight defensive wars. Thanks for convincing me of NATOs effectiveness
  
  I never said NATO is not effective defensive strategy for the government, just that it is effective offensive strategy as well. However this only applies to the government, not the people. Troops are sent to die in these offensive wars, while otherwise they would be safe at home. Don't spin this as an opposite claim that all non-NATO countries end up in a war. Some of the countries now in NATO where invaded by NATO first and then forced to join. That is like saying surrendering is safer then being nutral, bacause they can't attack you if you are already surrendered.
  
  NATO does not force countries to join. There's an application process. You're spouting literal Russian propaganda.
  
  A country that is attacked by NATO doesn't join it after 15-20 years with their populations support. They fund the politicians that are pro-NATO and get them to join it without the support of the people. It is what actually happened in places like Montenegro. Just beacuse it is horrible, don't assume it is not true. As for blaming me of spreading a russian propaganda, beacuse of letting you know that we have part in impersialistic regimes, I have a book for you.
  
  Montenegro didn't even exist as a political entity when the Operation Allied Force was in operation. Montenegro was created when it split from Serbia in 2006. At which point it found it's self on a border with a russian friendly state and rightly sought protection from NATO. which makes sense with NATO being a defensive alliance
  I would remind you as well that the bombings of serbia were signed off on by the UN security council which included russia to bring an end to the conflict there. The bombings did bring an end to the conflict there.
  It's disingenuous to just say "hurr durr nato bombed serbia. nato bad"
  And yeah, when you toe the kremlin line, people call you kremlin shill. no amount of childish pictures you post will change that
  
  Well the people in Montegro existed and they where part of the same country that was bombed. There are more montenegrians living in Belgrade then in Montegro, they didn't like the bombing. Besides, Serbia is not Russian friendly at all, that is propaganda. Serbian government did 10 times more NATO joint military exercises then with Russia, not only are they not Russia friendly, they are hardly neutral. They have NATO offices inside the general military headquaters, the same that building that is still in ruins from the NATO bombing in 1999. Main opposistion persidential candidate in last elections was a litaral NATO general. Serbia also recieves more donations from EU then any other entetiy and every law passed in the last 20 years was EU law in hopes of integretions that will never happen and people know it. Entire Blakan is under NATO thumb, the rest is just politics and PR. When you see the actual actions, like Serbia passing secretly passing weapons for Ukraine or wikileaks files showing CIA using Balkain states to supply weapons to taliban, the picture makes far more sense.
  
  No country has ever been forced to join NATO. a country has to apply to join and a defensive alliance only works if all members are willing
  
  They are made to be willing by funding politicains that secretly support it. When they get in power, they join without the support of their people. CIA has a long history of medeling in elections and this statement that it is willing is of course manufactured, as most of the democratic processes are.
  
  all the superpowers have a long history in meddling with each other domestic affairs. it's a superpower thing, not a NATO thing
  CIA != NATO
  
  I completely agree about all superpowers.
  CIA and NATO are very close.
  
  So so dangerous to have a defense alliance. What is this world coming to.
  
  Defense alliance that invades countries in middle east.
  
  You are confusing members (the US) doing their own thing, with the organization.
  
  Organization can't be better then it's members that are controlling it.
  
  Whoops, you admitted the organization and the members are different! Lol. Ok really ciao.
  
  You clearly see this as a game. You know exactly what I said and you are running away from it, just to have some kind of play of semantics like that somehow communicates some greater point. I really have no idea what is the point of this comment of yours.
  
  All the invasions of Iran, Afganistan, Vietnam, Syria, etc where unjustfied invasions
  The US has never invaded Iran
  Afganistan was completely justified; the US could not let 9/11 go. Few countries in the world disputed this at the time, even among those unfriendly to the US. You can certainly criticize how it played out--I sure as hell do.
  Vietnam, yeah, not going to argue there
  Syria was a complex 13 way clusterfuck. We supported a specific side against another specific side, mostly with material and air support, and some limited ground support. It's not exactly an invasion, but this is certainly another place where it's more about how it played out than the support in itself.
  
  Maybe he meant Iraq? I think Afghanistan taught us a lesson in what we've become. We were a country that could bomb another into the ground, but then rebuild it into a functional society. Regardless of the morals of that, japan and south korea are functional if unhappy. Unhappiness describes life, but I feel like the contracting on top of contacting and the line goes up profit obsession infected out zeitgeist so deeply, we are no longer capable of rebuilding what we destroy.
  
  Maybe did mean Iraq, but I'm not about to give a russiabot the benefit of doubt.
  
  I did mean Iraq. I am not a russian bot simply because I critisize our governments.
  
  If you're called a Russian bot so often that you need to have a prepared meme response, I feel like it doesn't matter if you are or are not a Russian propagandist.
  The cool thing about bad faith propoganda is that eventually, you trick dumb people into repeating it.
  Just look at COVID.
  
  It does matter if it is my honest opinion or if I was just wrongfully accused. One would be a critique of me, another is a critique on the propaganda that anyone who disagrees with people in power must be a KGB agent.
  
  I dont think you addressed anything in my comment.
  
  Eh I don't think we failed at nation building in Afghanistan because we're incapable of it, but because we didn't take the time to understand Afghan society and we weren't putting enough resources towards construction.
  
  I did mean Iraq, but Iran is not much better. US staged a coup in Iran to get a puppet government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Release_of_U.S._government_records_and_official_acknowledgement Afganistan is not justified, you don't invade an entire country because of a terroist attack. It was an excuse, just like the Patriot Act for more imperisalism and antidemocratic actions. Calling things invasions are semantics, more important is the bigger picture. US has huge influnace in the region thorug coups and military invasions.
  
  NATO did not invade Iraq, the US did. You are conflating things.
  
  NATO is heavily influenced by US. When they ask other countries to join, they wear a NATO hat, when they invade other countries they where their counturies independent hats that just so happens to be in NATO.
  
  Oops you admit they are not the same, but try to confuse the issue with "influence". Followed by more with "hat" which is lol worthy. NATO did not invade Iraq. The US did.
  Something tells me you're trying to be intentionally obtuse trying to conflate everything so ciao
  
  Afganistan is not justified, you don’t invade an entire country because of a terroist attack.
  You do when that country's leadership is deliberately giving those terrorists a base. Again, few other countries at the time disputed this.
  
  That is like saying it is justifed to bomb New York because Biden is helping Israel in their genocide. People are not their governments, going to war for revenge is cruel.
  
  Not really. More like if there was a terrorist base in the US that was being used to bomb Gaza directly and the US was giving them money and equipment to do it.
  
  Well they are giving them money and equipement to do it. The only difference is that isntead of one attack it is complete genocide of people and the fact that the base is not in US but in Isreal. But the support is the same and the crime is even greater. There is no sense to blame Afganistan for 9/11 and not US for genocide.
  
  You know what, honestly, yeah, the people of Gaza probably do have casus belli against the US. They merely lack the capacity to do anything.
  
  And that is exactly the point. Only thing it matters is that you have the power, all sides do horrible things, it is the power balance that has some meaning, not morality here. Currently power is very much on NATO side. No one can touch US when they commit war crimes, instead the whistleblowers and journalists are the ones that go to prison, like in Assange and Manning case.
  
  The current winner in the Middle East is Russia
  Since they are allowed to support the killing of civilians and suppression of rights they have Iran, Iraq, and Syria
  You can see how hard it is for the US to even have a foothold there with the Israel conflict. Which they are forced to support because of the above
  
  US has far more influence in Middle Easst then Russia. Russia didn't win anything in Middle East. US has control of Saudi Arabia and Israel quite famously. Most other governments where once funded by the CIA as well.
  
  Such control of SA that they murdered Khashoggi with no reprisal and not only is SA China’s biggest supplier of oil but they also have nuclear agreements
  
  Iraq was bad so let's let Russia annex any bit of Europe it wants. Checks out. I was vehemently opposed to Iraq. This is not Iraq. Not all wars are the same
  
  I never said we should let Russia annex anything, you are assuming that because I am against NATO expansion that I am pro Russia.
  
  No. I'm not assuming youre pro Russia. I think that you think that Russia is militarily impotent, given that you said as much. And that is on my opinion, wrong: see Crimea, Georgia, Ossetia, Moldova amongst others. Absent NATO, they've been invading and occupying neighbours quite happily. There's a demonstrable threat to which NATO is a demonstrable defense
  
  You can't seriously compare Russia and NATO by military power. They are competent to keep small regions under control, but they don't have even a small portion of the world wide power that NATO has.
  
  I did not and was not comparing the power of NATO to Russia.
  You said "[PUTIN] can't even win a war in a small country right next to his."
  I pointed out that this was false, as evidenced by the number of small countries next to his that he's already annexed or invaded. Even Ukraine hasn't been able to repel Russia even with western aid.
  Please stop trying to move the goalposts.
  
  I am not moving the goalposts, I am trying to put things into context rather then nitpicking every single sentence and strawmaning every argument. I speak in general terms, as I am not a robot. Everything I say is in a general political context.
  
  Expecting you to mean what you actually said is not a strawman. If you meant something else then clarify rather than argue an amorphous moving general vibe.
  
  Yeah but USA would have done all that with or with out NATO.
  
  True. I am just saying that NATO is helping them and they are using this as an excuse to get more countries into NATO to help them with their wars.
  
  Lmfao
  
  Can you elaborate?
  
  Putin doesn't want to win. And actually pretty much everyone benefits from this long standing conflicts. Except for Ukrainians and some dirt poor African nations.
  
  Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. Regular people are always the ones that suffer, on both sides, while for the politicians it is just about profit.
  
  I don't think this deserves the attack, guy speaks their mind, perhaps not from the most knowledgeable position, but I think it's valid nonetheless. There are a lot of arguments being made without really being arguments, more like spoken worries, and I agree with their trepidation, I feel kind of the same way, in that I am wary of the future and not as expediently joyous over the occasion so to speak.
  Also, I felt like when the ~~CEO~~ Prime Minister of Sweden appeared in the House for the State of the Union address to standing ovations felt like we were bringing water and dirt before Xerxes. A half demented, half man half werewolf Xerxes, I have a conspiracy theory that Biden and Trump are the same person. Make of it what you will, the list of US atrocities committed across the world and our common history is a long and dire read, and only seems to get longer every year.
  I'm glad to know that if "someone" invades Sweden the whole planet will go down in a nuclear holocaust, as a deterrent you know, but at the same time we're ironically posed before a problem common to Americans and Swedes alike- when it comes to our choices it's slim pickings.

334 comments