• HikingVet@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    8 months ago

    So Poutine wanted to weaken NATO, ends up adding countries, including one that has been neutral for an incredibly long time.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sweden has a strong military industry too and Finnland is literally right at Russia’s border. Putin is a master strategist.

      • Magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Side note, this is also the French spelling of Putin. So you can eat Poutine while being mad at Poutine (I’ll let you guess which is which, unless you’re a cannibal then everything goes TBF).

    • bumphot@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate. It does worry me how centralized power balance in the World has become over US controlling most of the conflicts and countries in the World.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate.

        I’ll pick the middle option: Putin is high on his own supply.

        The man made it clear that dissent will be met with swift and gruesome consequences. This is a sure-fire recipe for surrounding yourself with yes-men that are not smart enough to get the hell out. And BTW, that’s always a career where everyone’s last promotion is “pavement inspector”, and training starts immediately at an open 6th floor window. So there’s some cocky, can’t-guage-risk-for-a-damn people mixed in there too. The result is a bunch of decisions from the head-of-state that only make sense between those in his court, and fail to hold up to scrutiny outside those walls.

        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          By CIA coups, puppet governments, military funding, weapon supplies to insurgents or to the governments, sanctions, etc.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            These are not arguments. It is a list of fun buzzwords. Do you have anything specific or concrete to talk about? Am I talking to ChatGPT? I need to know! Are you my skynet daddy?

    • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I never knew the Russian president was actually a Canadian dish in disguise.

      In fact, come to think of it, why don’t the Russians simply eat him? If he’s that delicious then surely they gotta dig in.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Good. Sweden has very strong military capabilities with their Total Defense strategy. They also have very advanced weapons development and a huge defense industry, including their Gripen fighter jets. NATO got a lot stronger today.

    • Muscar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      8 months ago

      As a Swede I often find myself thankful we don’t have the military brainwashing the US has, even though we have a strong military for such a small country. The army stuff is there if you look but if you don’t care you don’t notice it much, if at all. I’m not invested enough to have a really informed opinion about us joining NATO. But from what I know it’ll be a good thing, just being able to help countries more that need it is enough of a reason IMO.

      • KrokanteBamischijf@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        8 months ago

        NATO was originally founded so that we’d stop invading each other, which should still hold true today.

        I like to think of most developed nations as young adults. All of us are supposed to be mature, which means no more war. We can just talk about things like responsible adults.

        Sadly, some of these younger fucks still haven’t grasped the concept of “don’t be an idiot”, and we now need NATO for a strong message of “no, you’re not going to touch us, there will be consequences”. It’s a sad thing that we still need to do so, but I’d rather have a large group of friends that I’m sure will have my back if someone would start shit.

        So yes, Sweden joining NATO is a good thing. If anything it will lead to better cooperation and coordination between our countries. Not just in the event of war, but just sharing defense resources and intelligence as well. But the best argument is that we just like you Swedes, and we want to keep hanging out together.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          You are confusing NATO and UN. UN was founded so that we’d stop invading each other.

          • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            8 months ago

            NATO was, too. It’s like nuclear weapons. Deterrence. Not meant to be used, but it’s a stabilizer.

            That’s why Trump’s words are so harmful. It undermines the deterrence value and the trust. Even though the US is the only country that has ever needed to activate Article 5, after 911. But he probably doesn’t even know that.

      • mellowheat@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        As a Finn, I thought that joining Nato was the last nail in the coffin. After several decades of crawling towards it, we’re finally a western civilized country now.

        You swedes were there already for historical reasons though, but very nice to have you in the same military alliance.

      • bumphot@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        This just means that Sweden will have send their troops to fight wars in middle east for oil companies. Russia is hardly capable of attacking Ukraine that is right next to it and has some local support of some Russian citizens. They would never make it to Sweden in the next 100 years. But a lot of lives will be lost in the Middle East in that time.

        • SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          8 months ago

          isn’t NATO a defensive treaty? which would mean no obligation to participate in actions of aggression?

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            8 months ago

            It absolutely is; this guy is either an idiot or deliberately misleading.

            Article V has been invoked exactly one time, by the United States after the September 11 attacks. The direct outcomes of this were two operations: Operation Eagle Assist, where NATO forces helped patrol and monitor US airspace in the immediate months after 9/11, and Operation Active Endeavour, a maritime operation where NATO ships patrolled and secured shipping lines in the Mediterranean. NATO itself was not directly involved under Article V in the Iraq invasion, though some members did voluntarily participate (hence Bush’s “coalition of the willing”).

            There have been NATO operations in the Middle East under Article IV invoked by Turkey, which mandates only military consultation from members, not direct intervention, though they may voluntarily participate if they want. Likewise, NATO was involved in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is not in the Middle East) and Libya in a similar voluntary capacity. It should be noted that, despite not being a member, Sweden did participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan, voluntarily.

            Sweden is only obligated to participate in military action if a member state is actively attacked. Otherwise, it’s able to voluntarily participate in other NATO operations, as it has already done in the past. That NATO is a tightly organized and coordinated international military organization makes it really useful for large international operations - generally directed by the UN - but outside of defensive invocations of Article V, these are strictly optional, and members very much have refused to participate in American-led operations that they don’t agree with (see Iraq).

          • bumphot@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Only on paper. In practice there are many financial and military infulence that US gets when a country joins NATO that result in joining wars in Middle East.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              Such as when America tried to lead everyone into a predictably disastrous invasion of Iraq, resulting in most of Europe telling us to fuck off?

              Truly, the ‘infulence’ of America is mighty and all must tremble before it.

            • Zanshi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              What’s your source on that?

              If none go spread your propaganda somewhere else, you’re either a russian bot or a sympathiser. Either way you will find no friends here.

              • bumphot@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations All of NATO wars were in non-NATO countries, all where offensive invasitions. They fight in MIddle East for oil companies. I do not sympathize with Russian government, they are just as bad when given the chance. But NATO is scarier. Calling people to support Russia when they critisize your government is insane.

                • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  And again, the only mandatory after Article V have been monitoring and patrolling US airspace for a few months after 9/11 and some maritime operations in the Mediterranean to protect shipping and prevent terrorism and smuggling. All those other NATO operations were voluntary, and other NATO countries have happily told the US to fuck off when they don’t want to be involved.

                  Also, Sweden, despite not being in NATO, also participated in operations in Afghanistan. Your premise that being in NATO necessarily causes you to be involuntarily dragged into gallivanting around the Middle East is simply false. Other nations have autonomy and agency, actually. Not everything is about America.

    • bumphot@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

          • yildolw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 months ago

            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

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • andxz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                8 months ago

                As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry.

                Your posts on the matter reads like insane propaganda as well.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            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?

            • Otakulad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • bumphot@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                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

                • Otakulad@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago
                  1. Never called you a bot.

                  2. You have no link to a source in the thread I was replying to.

                  3. 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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

            • oatscoop@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            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!”

                • Otakulad@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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?

        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          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

          • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • StinkyOnions@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                8 months ago

                NATO does not force countries to join. There’s an application process. You’re spouting literal Russian propaganda.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

              • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                8 months ago

                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

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.
        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          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’état#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.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                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

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            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

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                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

        • BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              I did mean Iraq. I am not a russian bot simply because I critisize our governments.

              • nac82@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Organization can’t be better then it’s members that are controlling it.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Whoops, you admitted the organization and the members are different! Lol. Ok really ciao.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        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

        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I never said we should let Russia annex anything, you are assuming that because I am against NATO expansion that I am pro Russia.

          • kaffiene@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • kaffiene@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

      • hansl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • kaffiene@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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

      • katy ✨
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        the un and nato serve two very different and distinct purposes though.

  • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    8 months ago

    Putin: If anyone joins NATO there will be dire consequences!

    Sweden: Du är inte lika stark som du luktar dumjävel

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 months ago

    Not Post WWII, it’s Post Napoleon neutrality, the 6th coalition was the last hurrah of Swedish involvement in continental affairs, and thus the beginning of their extended neutrality in such affairs.

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    8 months ago

    So – pure curiosity… Which countries could yet still potentially join NATO.

    Switzerland doesn’t join anything ever, so it’s the dark horse. But since everything is done by referendum there, it could change on a dime if the public demanded it.

    Austria literally has it in their constitution that they aren’t allowed – but in theory they could change their constitution (unlikely).

    Moldova has the whole Transnistria incentive – but NATO would be shy about that one, because that could potentially immediately put them in hot conflict. However, suppose they backdoored their way in by creating a union with Romania (not impossible, but complicated).

    Ireland has been neutral forever – but the public support for Ukraine is extremely high. So they might even be possible. Higher than Switzerland anyway ;)

    Bosnia and Herzegovina is sort of a special case where they’re sort of partially engaged already.

    Serbia is extremely unlikely while they continue to be extremely contemptuous of everyone. That’s fine. Although Kosovo is sort of under NATO protection.

    In theory, Georgia or Armenia would be candidates, but Turkey would pooh-pooh Armenia right away, and Georgia has contested territory.

    In order of odds, I wager: Ireland, Moldova (via Romania), Georgia+Ukraine (in that order chronologically).

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m interested in Ireland too, especially in the next few years as the reunification party is resurgent

      • Kentaree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ireland has no chance, people here are extremely pro neutrality to the point there were protests when American Airforce jets refueled here. It’s not a case of alignment, it’s that nobody wants to get involved in any sort of conflict.

        • khannie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          That was a very long time ago unless I’ve missed something more recent? (Genuine question) Personally think it’s time to re-examine our neutrality

          It feels wrong not to support Ukraine militarily.

          • taanegl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re all very neutral, until it comes to throwing an Englishman in the sea - LAI-DEE-DAI-DEE-DEE!!!

            • khannie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Hi-dilly-hi…hi-dilly-ho…over the side of the boat you go!

              Nah we’re all friendly now for the most part. Sporting events excluded naturally where fervent, screaming nationalism from the Irish comes in and the English wonder why we are so angry at them. :D

          • Kentaree@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            There was a lot of backlash in the last few months when Leo Varadkar attended a defense conference which was mostly NATO members. He was forced to state that Ireland will not join any military alliance whatsoever. I do agree that it feels wrong to not support countries that realistically we’re aligned with but the Irish military is in such a state that if we tried I’d expect Ukraine to actually donate equipment to us instead

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          A reunified Ireland could benefit from being in NATO in case England loses their God damn minds and tried to take them back at some point in the future, but I guess those days are over.

          • khannie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah, those days are gone thankfully. Also it would be a mistake of epic proportions to try and subjugate the Irish one last time tbh. Epic proportions.

          • bumphot@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Don’t fearmonger people just so they can join some wars in the middle east for oil companies. They are under no threat and have only to lose.

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          To be fair, Ireland doesn’t have the resources or population to be involved in a continental conflict in a impactful way. Getting involved in a war you might not win and might result in the end of your small nation isn’t normally a good idea.

          I don’t believe nato could lose a war with Russia, but I don’t blame Ireland for not wanting to risk it

          • fidodo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            If Russia somehow won a war against NATO and took over all the European NATO countries, which is the vast majority of Europe, what would prevent them from just taking over the leftover bits at that point?

            • khannie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah neutrality is worthless at that point. Sure Hitler wasn’t going to stop with the UK. We were definitely next.

              The main advantage it has given us has been as a trusted UN peacekeeper where the Irish Defence Forces have been seen as a neutral third part to conflict and they have done and continue to do solid work abroad in that regard.

          • mkwt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Doesn’t Ireland already have defensive pact status with a bunch of NATO members through the EU? If your fellow EU states are being attacked, can you really stay out?

    • mellowheat@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      I was surprised to learn Ireland is not in Nato. They should obviously join asap.

          • GroundPlane@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Most member states have been in support of Israel. Most egregious being US and Germany, but France is ranking high. Supporting Israel is quite zionist in my opinion

          • bumphot@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes. Israel fully depends on US for weapons and finances. Just like NATO. So naturally US government uses both for the same purpose of controlling oil in the middle east.

          • GroundPlane@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The Irish express solidarity on a regular basis. The anticolonial struggle against the English has made them way closer to Palestinians and other colonized peoples than the rest of Europe.

          • bumphot@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            US has authority in Israel and NATO, so they can make both of them fight in these wars that benefit their oil companies. So NATO and Israel are part of the same miltiary force, only run by different puppet governments.

    • Zanshi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Basically any country that was a previous Russian/Soviet satellite and are not interested in being one anymore.

      • GroundPlane@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Never in a million years would Switzerland condemn Israel. The state loves Israel. Maybe a strongly worder “please don’t kill children in hospitals” was said, but no measures whatsoever were taken

    • bumphot@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      A lot of countries from your list are already very close with NATO, they have NATO offices in their top military command and do most of the military exceraises with NATO. NATO also has a lot of officers of these countries on their paycheck, even some biggest presidentail candidates in these countries are NATO generals.

      NATO has a huge control over the netural governments, only reason they don’t join is because of their populations that don’t like NATO countries invading middle east for oil. Mostly in the Balkans that is the case and some of the countries that joined, they did it without referendums against the will of their people. There is a big sentiment of NATO looking imperialistic and treating middle east and the balkans as colonies. Bosnia for example, doesn’t even have real independence, high representitve placed by the west, from the UN can veto anything that is not in their interest. “So far, all of the High Representatives named have been from European Union countries, and their principal deputies have typically been from the United States”

    • bumphot@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t be so blinded by your hatered towards the Russian government to not notice how US used this to strenghten their control over Europe. As horrible as this Russian invasion is, it is nothing compared to the decades of invasions in middle east done by NATO countries. Sweden will have to send their troops now to fight for US oil companies.

          • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s funny how you dismiss Russia from being involved in the Middle East when it was one of the main reasons why the Middle East is so unstable. Bur continue on saying how bad NATO is.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              How is Russia one of the main reasons that Middle East is unstable? Middle Eastern borders where drawn by the NATO mamber states, all terrorist organizastions are now publicly said to be first funded by the CIA. Every war that started in the Middle East was by US invasion and funded coups. Russia is bad and it got involved in some of the confilicts, but lets not be blinded by the hatered towards them so much to forget all the crimes in the Middle East done by our governments and pretend it is Russias fault for everything.

        • bumphot@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I understand that. I am not saying they are not wrong in this. I am just saying that our governments are using this to extend their power, like they always do and is hurting us even more then the problem itself. As it always does.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If feels peculiar. Like when you are the little brother of some guy and he brings you into their club and you become like their mascot or something.

  • katy ✨
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    it’s amazing the chain of effect that happened when putin got so bold that he got orban to not only side with ukraine but also drop opposition to finland joining nato which caused sweden to join

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s wild watching all the “human entropy” build up at the same time to hit in a really shitty fruition of shittiness. Religious conflict and genocide in Gaza, hottest planet records month after month, Russia/china/North Korea building up for WW3, a massive rise in fascism across western nations, with a culmination in this year’s US presidential election, unprecedented corporate profits as inflation skyrockets, AI companies abandoning ethics for financial gains as the LLMs rapidly grow in capability

      It’s like Murphy’s law hitting the planet all at once, we’d just need some new COVID super strain to hit right as WW3 kicks off to be the cherry on top

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think Covid actually delayed it! I don’t think we will be as “lucky” if a second round comes.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Ironically it’s like it delayed it to occur when everything else is beginning to rear its head. Everyone was so focused on Covid they couldn’t be shitty for a little bit. Not anymore. WW3 is one thing, WW3 with a fascist, fractured west is another

          • Rayspekt@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            What I don’t get is the sissy sub fascists nowadays. The dumb fucks generally want to wage war with everybody and now that there are legitimate threats to their precious Vaterlands they are pacifists all of a sudden. I get it, they a funded largely by russia and china etc, but do they really think they won’t get shafted when the west collapses? Absolute omega farts.

      • sheogorath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sell all of your assets and build a self-sufficient ranch on New Zealand. Looking at WW3 projections it’s going to be one of the places untouched by a nuclear war and won’t feel the effects of a nuclear winter as harsh as other places. Hmm, it looks like that the billionaires building their doomsday bunkers at New Zealand has the same idea.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          8 months ago

          lol “all of my assets.” If my net worth is debt, then perhaps my ranch will be built from anti-matter

        • Rayspekt@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          The one rogue nuke hitting New Zealand would be a heavy hit to Peter Thiel and his buddies’ apocalypse plans as they continue to buy up the whole country.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        This has happened exactly zero times in the one thousand year history of Sweden. Except for when the Danes came, but they got disposed of.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You’re right. Go tell them they have nothing to fear from Putin because the Shield Of History is protecting them. Meanwhile Australia, New Zealand, USA et al should all dispand all of their defense forces because they’ve never been invaded before so of course, history protects them too

          • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Ok, I’m not the one to call strawman on people, I strawman all the time, but holy strawman batman.

            • kaffiene@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              No. It’s not a strawman. I’m not making a claim about your argument, I’m being sarcastic