Putin: If anyone joins NATO there will be dire consequences!
Sweden: Du är inte lika stark som du luktar dumjävel
I went through to the trouble of translating that, and it was worth it.
deleted by creator
Psychiatry. You need it.
Have to add a funny FU to Putin that I saw. Yesterday, a B 52, and a B1B did a flyover of Stockholm escorted by Swedish Gripens
Good. Cry some more Russia.
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.
Lol, okay, guy.
What did I say wrong?
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.
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.
They would get less hatred if they stopped invading their neighbors.
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.
You must really like the taste of russian boots, jfc.
Tears of a clown plays
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.
deleted by creator
If you tried to look like you need to visit psychiatrist, you did it well enough
Vikings with axes have joined the conversation…
90% of Sweden are migrants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
Church of Sweden and no Religion account for 91% of all swedes. Immigrants with a different religion don’t even account for 10%
Welcome Sweden! It’s good to have you
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
removed by mod
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?
removed by mod
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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’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.
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
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
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.
In what way has the Russian Invasion of Ukraine led to more authoritarianism among NATO member states?
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.
Not a direct neighbour, but they’re in the neighbourhood that is the Baltic Sea.
Russia is not known for their naval invasions.
(͡•_ ͡• )
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.
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.
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
CEOPrime 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.
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.
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.
NEUTRALITY! HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Getting picked off piecemeal by warmongers
Good god y’all!
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The only reply worth reading lmao
Not much if you’re left to defend yourself against a dictator who likes playing land grab and takes any excuse to rape murder and torture to subjugate as a valid excuse.
Look, I hate war as much as the next guy, but you gotta be pragmatic here. Putin is NOT a nice guy, to make an understatement. Without Putin’s in this world, we wouldn’t need wars, but here we are…
Is this good or bad, I’m dumb
Russia fucked up so badly LOL.
Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Tell my wife I said…hello
Sings: “Did I tell you lately, that I’m neutral…!”
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).
Personally, I see no reason why ever nation couldn’t join NATO at some point.
I expect “clever” dipshits to be like “NORTH ATLANTIC”, though.
Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It’s baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what’s invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn’t invoke it.
I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn’t apply to them.
We got one!
but without a change to the treaty
If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.
Changing that treaty is not going to be easy. There are a lot of parties involved.
Edit: as to your second sentence, there are some thoughts about making a NATO-equivalent for the Pacific.
Maybe they don’t want to die in middle east for US oil companies.
You got downvoted but you’re not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.
NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias
Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don’t have a defensive pact. Ow wait!
Did Iraq and Libya invade any democracies or NATO? Plenty of coping and short term memories in this thread. Or it could be something else?
Did anyone say they did?
You did.
NATO didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term ‘coalition of the willing’. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Wasn’t libya a un coalition?
I’m interested in Ireland too, especially in the next few years as the reunification party is resurgent
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re all very neutral, until it comes to throwing an Englishman in the sea - LAI-DEE-DAI-DEE-DEE!!!
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
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
I thought Switzerland condemned Israel?
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
Ukraine
deleted by creator
To Nato
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”
deleted by creator
Have you seen their support of Palestinians? They’ll never join NATO
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Wait, is NATO Zionist or something? Did I miss the memo?
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
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.
Lol
Basically any country that was a previous Russian/Soviet satellite and are not interested in being one anymore.
Technically it’s not “post-WWII neutrality”, since this specific neutrality began when Sweden declared its neutrality in September 1939, which isn’t after WWII, but pre/during.
Sad news… A totally destroyed country won’t bring us nothing good
What does this even mean? Ukraine wanted to join nato, but didn’t because Russia threatened them and so they dropped it. And Russia invaded anyway. Had they been part of nato Russia wouldn’t have touched them.
Sweden is the black hole of Europe. They can only offer migrants
What does anything you said have to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
They are a bag of problems
Nato is just a mutual defense pact. Whatever other issues you’ve been convinced they have really have no bearing on nato.
The only valid criticism of that I think is Serbia, but considering that was to stop a genocide, I’m okay with that. I wish NATO had done so for other genocides too.
You didn’t answer the question
Oh no!
Should we not be asking clarifying questions to your vague posts?
Lol that you think Sweden is destroyed.
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
So Poutine wanted to weaken NATO, ends up adding countries, including one that has been neutral for an incredibly long time.
Cheese curds have nothing to do with this.
You’re right, at least cheese curds get thrown out when the go bad. Kinda like what Putin does with critics.
[Pours hot gravy on Putin] “A crown for King.”
Cheese curds go bad? I guess I never let them last long enough to find out.
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.
Your spellcheck outed you as a Canadian
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).
I thought it was “putain”
Nah, that is actually a slang for sex workers, who do not deserve to be associated with Putin.
Sorry, french changes the spelling of proper nouns?
So does English, in Russian Putin’s name is Путин.
Yep, especially when they come from different alphabets. But we used to do it for English names too (mostly medieval ones though).
The last name of the president of Russia is Пу́тин. Since people can’t read that without knowing Cyrillic, we need a way to map Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. However, neither Cyrillic nor Latin script have universal pronunciations: the phonetic value of letters change depending on the language. This leads to the romanization of a name being different depending what the source and target language is. Пу́тин is Putin for Russian-to-English, but Poutine for Russian-to-French. They’re both equally correct, and neither is a change from the other.
I feel like this is advanced trollery, as “poutine” is a French Canadian word, not French French, and pronounced quite differently than Putin.
Yeah, and it made me kinda hungry too…
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.
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.
How is the US controlling conflicts and countries?
By CIA coups, puppet governments, military funding, weapon supplies to insurgents or to the governments, sanctions, etc.
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?
Sweden has a strong military industry too and Finnland is literally right at Russia’s border. Putin is a master strategist.
deleted by creator
Your comment reminded me of this video, highly worth a watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Dude really read a history book about Hitler fighting a one front war and somehow turning it into a three front war and said “Hold my beer”
