"Why Sweden Should Join NATO" Topic

"As American foreign policy observers begin cautiously to look beyond the Trump era, what they see is not pretty: The United States's reputation lies in tatters. Whereas George W. Bush (justly or not) earned the U.S. a reputation of aggression and carelessness in leading the free world, Donald Trump has earned the U.S. a reputation of uninterest in leading at all. His isolationism has weakened and divided NATO, which is why it is so vital that as soon as possible after Trump leaves office, NATO demonstrates to the rest of the world in a definitive way that the current chapter of orange-flavored isolationism and kowtowing to Russia has ended.

What better way than to recruit Sweden as a member?

There are several reasons why Sweden would strengthen and reinvigorate NATO, starting with plain old geography: Sweden shares a sea border with Russia (Kaliningrad), and we possess the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea that is vital to NATO's ability to defend the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) in the event of Russian aggression. Put yourself in Russia's shoes and suppose that you want to attack and occupy the Baltic states, and you want to do so in such a way as to make it hard or impossible for NATO to come to their aid until it's too late…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The first paragraph is UTTER B.S..

He has been able to actually strengthen NATO by shaming some nations into spending more on their own defense, since many have been derelict in their commitments to their own collective defense.

Of course, the richest nation in the EU/NATO, after the USA, refuses to increase their spending now, even though it could afford to, but claims it might by 2030. I doubt that as well, and Germany's cozy relationship with Russia and Putin IS a major part of the problem.

The US President has also placed some of the harshest sanctions on Russia, and actually provided useful weapons to Ukraine to aid in their defense vs. Russia, e.g. Javelin ATGMs, unlike his predecessor who refused to do that, and opted to given Ukraine bandaids, blankets, and MREs.

Granted, I've heard the MREs can be pretty bad, if not lethal, but you'd have to supply those to the Russian separatists and troops in Eastern Ukraine for those to be "effective".

Sadly, others in NATO have expanded their cooperation and trade with Russia, to the detriment of their own defense and that of other nations in the region, instead of holding Putin to account for his support for the Russian separatists, and the shooting down of a civilian airliner by them, which killed many innocent civilians.

The USA has aided Sweden since the 1960s in the area of weapons and research, to stave off the Soviets/Russians, and it was pretty much understood that if they were attacked, they could join NATO if desired.

I suspect that is still the case.

I do agree that a more overt stance now would be a good idea to perhaps strengthen and reinvigorate NATO, though it also might just serve to irritate Putin and cause him to have his air force increase the heat on the Swedish nation.

Bornholm and Gotland could definitely be in play in any future Russian adventure in the Baltics.

A number of military wargames have shown that Russia could easily take over the Baltic states in a matter of hours, if not days (48 – 72 hours maximum), and there is little they, or NATO could do about it.

Sweden, and Im a swede myself, does not deserve to be a member of NATO. Our socialist/greenleftist government spends almost no money at all on our defense forces.

We cannot defend ourself much less help someone else. So who wants to help us when we cannot help you?

Until Sweden shows it self serious in upgrading our own defense force we should not be allowed to join.

NATO has been a joke for years, Trump brought that to light and nothing else.

Once we (the US) get our act together by having a thinking leader and a real policy against Russian disruption of Western and particularly what remains of US democracy, NATO may serve as a credible bulwark against Russian expansionism and empire building. THis will happen only when (if) we fix ourselves.

Well there is the Swedish Bikini Tm to consider also …

An interesting take on things, soledad.

I am very sorry to hear that.

I wasn't aware that your military has been so badly gutted, but I was aware that most, if not all of your Fast Attack vessels were sold off, or retired, and not replaced, which seems very unwise. Of course, they don't/can't last forever, so some sort of replacement regime needs to be planned for, and put into place. They packed a major wallop for such small vessels back in the day, and still do/did, compared to many much more modern vessels of today.

I've read that you guys realize Gotland is very vulnerable to attack, and so more units were being staged/permanently assigned to the island. Is that accurate and still the case?

Seems to me that would be a prudent thing to do, since the Russians could drop paratroops on the island with their jets or helos, and use those fast air-cushioned landing craft for reinforcing them quickly, if desired.

I suspect the bikini team could serve as a major distraction against the Russian troops, if properly deployed/employed.

In Europe there is a suspicion that Trump simply do not care to be a world leader, and the major powers hope that the problem will go away. If not there will be a rise of Europe as an major power and the trade wars will be reignited.
Europe is beginning to doubt the US commitment to common defense.
Also the absurd US idea that europe will bow to american sanctions on economic trade with Iran will soon have a major impact.

Legionarus, why should US guarantee defence of Europe when Europe's major powers care little for defence and most seek close relations with Russia including cheap Russian oil and gas supplies?

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

If not there will be a rise of Europe as an major power and the trade wars will be reignited.

Except unlike the USA or China or Russia, Europe is not a united entity. It is still multiple countries with multiple agendas (indeed relations between Italy and France are extremely poor due to immigration and Libyan issues).

And there is little appetite in Germany and elsewhere for further integration.

The Germans are happy with current levels of integration – it suits their economic goals (Euro keeps German exports cheap, EU acts as a captive market etc etc).

Current French President Macron is one of the few who want greater European integration but he is getting nowhere.

Europe is beginning to doubt the US commitment to common defense.

The Americans were publicly doubtful of European commitment to common defence even during Obama's presidency. Ex-defence secretary Robert Gates absolutely slammed European defence spending in one of his last speeches in 2011!

link

Europe used to contribute 50% of defence spending during the Cold War, now they're down to less than 25%!

And other than some peripheral states, nothing has improved. In fact after 2011 most European states kept disarming. COVID is now being used to push even more defence cutbacks.

In essence the European attitude to common defence is that if there is a war, it will be young Americans dying to keep the Europeans safe.

Among the dumbest things ever.

Let's take a false premise and propose a solution to it that involved a country that was last taken seriously 300 years ago.

Let's cut the Europeans loose and let them defend themselves. All we really need for them is cooperation in the areas of terrorism and international crime. Surely we can all agree on that.

Still, with Pennsylvania allied to Lithuania, some international alliances may have to continue.

"Europe is beginning to doubt the US commitment to common defense".

That is laughable.

After 75 years, of the USA providing for their defense in a major way, they should be able to see the light.

Actually, the exact opposite is REALLY true, "America now definitely doubts the European commitment to their own defense" (a quote by me, on this day, in 2020).

The German leader has definitely put the last nail in the coffin on that subject, by refusing to allocate even 50% of the promised funds for their own defense, saying they "might" reach that goal by 2030 (which of course they won't), and that of their allies, and by cozying up to Putin for cheap fuel.

Apparently, she and others don't seem to understand that can be used even more effectively as a weapon to cripple their society and that of the EU, should Vladimir decide on a whim to turn delivery off, especially in the dead of Winter, without firing a shot in anger.

"All we really need for them is cooperation in the areas of terrorism and international crime. Surely we can all agree on that".

Ha, ha, ha, yea, right. Just look at their support for sanctions on Iran, which is the global leader in terrorism, and most of the EU refuses to put sanctions on them for that, or their illicit ballistic missile and nuclears weapons programs, even today.

The EU is soft on crime and terrorism, and sadly we seem to be suffering from that here on the other side of the pond as well, now.

This thread escalated quickly…

Swedish politicians, unfortunately, in the beginning of this century decided that "eternal peace" had arrived and saw their chance to lessen spending on the military. As the Soviet Union had dissolved there was "no threat to peace now of forever"… So first the liberal government and the socialist one completely gutted the military.

Approx 85-90% was removed. Granted a lot of it was old and not that useful but nothing came to replace it.

Now we have approx two weak brigades. We can defend approx 10% of our country for about a week before there are no munitions left.

What little materiel we have is very good, the soldiers and officers are for the most part very very good and dedicated but the amounts are pitiful.

Gotland have been reinforced. It was the head of the defense force that on his own initiative put troops on Gotland. The government didn't care.

They are not enough to defend the island but would inflict enough casualties that an invasion would not be bloodless a la Crimea. That might/would make it clear that it is war and not a Russian "operation to insure peace in the baltic region"…

When it comes to who exports crime and terrorism Europe to the US or US to Europe can be in its own thread.

These "ultramodern threads" tend to evoke/provoke our members into political commentary which is not in the spirit of the forum.After all, "War is pursuit of policy /politics by other means." (Clausewitzian paraphrase.) There are other places or sites that welcome this sort of discussion. Let's get back to Ancients!

These "ultramodern threads" tend to evoke/provoke our members into political commentary

LOL, pot meet kettle.

The reputation of the US military is the best it has even been. We have a Commander-in-Chief who will not waste our military on useless globalist wars but at the same time will not hesitate to unleash their full power if necessary to defend the United States.

USAFPilot, I disagree.

Nothing has changed.

Current C-in-C is as useless in the foreign policy spectrum as the previous one.

Indeed US is still bumbling in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Africa. It's still too scared to go after Iran.

The US has no coherent position on Russia and China.

Nothing has changed and nothing will. Last C-in-C who had any overall vision was George Dubya and he made a mess of it too.

Last C-in-C who had a coherent vision was Ronald Reagan (and I certainly don't agree with his neoliberalism but the man did have a vision and knew how to achieve it).

The US squandered the gift the USSR gave it when it collapsed.

Pax-Americana was 20 years of clueless bumbling and mistake after mistake.

Hence the position the west finds itself in now.

As for reputation, here in Australia the US is no longer regarded as a reliable partner in the Asia Pacific. Hence a massive rearmament plan.

Japan too has had to revamp its military status cause the US position on China has been extremely weak for decades.
This wasn't a problem when the Chinese were a fourth rate agricultural power but is now a major problem given they are the 2nd biggest economy on the planet.

Of course the US is in a better position than the disarmed states of Europe.

arealdeadone, you strike me as a smart guy who knows history. Don't you think the world has always been a mess? We just spent the last half of the 20th century on the brink of nuclear war with the USSR. The current CinC has increased military spending and the morale of the troops.

-1 USAF Pilot. The current CINC is a pathological liar, who insults true heroes and was a bona fide draft dodger. Whatever happened to "Duty, Honor, Country and "an officer does not lie, cheat or steal NOR tolerates does who do???" (West Point says a cadet.) Just reporting what everyone has seen… I'm retired and will never salute ths SOB. Now, let's get back to Ancients.

USAFpilot,

1. The world was always a mess. However the US was presented with a massive opportunity in 1991 that it squandered.

2. The CinC increased payments to corrupt defence contractors. The reason the USMC is undergoing such rapid transformation is because there is insufficient funding to maintain current capabilities. The USAF is planning similar massive cutbacks.

The USN is still struggling to fix ships – some have been awaiting repairs for anywhere up to 9 years!

But it's a good time to own Lockheed Martin and Raytheon shares.

Legionarius, liar? "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Or how about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Or "read my lips, no new taxes".

USAF PIlot bad critical thinking. Other peoples lies do not excuse this SOBs constant lies in less than a full term. Others have committed faults, this one has no morals at all and a one cell brain.

The USN is still struggling to fix ships – some have been awaiting repairs for anywhere up to 9 years!

Thank you for saying that. "9 years", lots of blame to go around. I haven't taken a poll, but my fellow retired officers think the current CinC is much better than the last one.

And Raytheon shares haven't been doing that well this past year.

Legion, why the personal attacks? Argue the policy you don't like. I never cared for the last guy, but would never call my CinC a SOB.

I didn't say anything ? You mean Legionarious ?

Back to Ancients :)

Legionarius, our CinC's opponent is also a pathological and self-admitted liar, admitted plagiarist who insults true heroes (called them "stupid bastards" to their faces during one of his speeches – look it up on video) and was a bona fide draft dodger (Biden got FIVE deferments from the Vietnam draft due to asthma).

Joe didn't:

- graduate at the top of his law class like he claimed in the past (much closer to the bottom),
- didn't graduate with three college degrees from there as the falsely claimed (not sure he even earned one),
- didn't go to that Delaware college (the college confirmed that recently),
- didn't ever meet with Nelson Mandela in South Africa, even though he claimed he did,
- didn't get arrested in South Africa while trying to meet with Mandela, even though he claimed he did, but
- did have to cancel TWO previous political campaigns for President due to ALL his plagiarism and lies, AND as mentioned above, did
- manage to avoid the selective service draft 5 times, so he didn't have to serve in Vietnam.

The apple also doesn't fall far from the tree. His son was kicked out of the military dishonorably, for using cocaine, and he has collected literally Millions and Billions of dollars while in daddy's company, flying on Air Force 2, from the Chinese, Ukrainians, and Russians, among others, in exchange for virtually nothing.

That makes me wonder what the family owes to our enemies in exchange for ALL that money, since the Russians don't just give you $3.5 USD MILLION, and the Chinese $1.5 USD BILLION for nothing.

Sorry Legion 4, yes I meant Legionarius. I was typing on my phone keeping it short.

Well stated Thresher01 with lots of supporting facts. I get a kick when I hear the over used term "critical thinking" followed by an emotional rant.

I want to start a a new account and use the name "Legionarius 4" just to sow confusion! :)

Sorry Legion 4, yes I meant Legionarius.

Not sweat !

I want to start a a new account and use the name "Legionarius 4" just to sow confusion! :)

How cunning ! 😱😁😉😎

On other sites Legion 4 was just abbreviated to L4 … Anyone feel free to use that too ! 🤩

Legionarious, or ILegionarius could be fun too.

Just joking there mate, and its ALL in good fun, so……..

Just for the record, in relation to Joe's disgraced son. The latter took more than 400 domestic trips with Secret Service personnel in tow, no doubt at taxpayer expense (and this guy wasn't even elected) and at least 29 of those were international ones:

link

It's unclear what he was doing, but he certainly raked in a lot of cash while doing it, with virtually NO skills in the area(s) he is/was being compensated for.

Apparently it is good to have a daddy as a senator and VP.

Why Legion 4? Was that your radio call sign in the army or something?