Do you think Sweden should be accepted in NATO?

[Spongebobssocks]

I 100% understand if you don't think so.. considering the terrorism problems and more.. but be honest please!

Yes

No

I have too little information to judge this situation

[Soteris]

As a Swedish person, I do not think so. From my point of view it is signing up for extra costs and responsibilities without anything to gain in return. NATO only really matters for Sweden for its protection of its members but Sweden is not under any kind of threat that would warrant such protection.

Before anyone says Russia, they do not have a realistic way to invade Sweden. Specifically, Russias navy sucks balls and their ability to launch a naval invasion is about on par with my ability to swim to Kaliningrad with a knife and occupy it by myself. Its not going to work out.

[Spongebobssocks]

Hmmm okej.. intressant tänkt:)

[Jersey2]

Sweden can’t seriously defend its land. The population is too small and it’s military is microscopic and could not even hold Stockholm. Yes, you live your tiny navy but the Russians fight in a way that mitigates that. They can send a thousand ships loaded with troops and Sweden couldn’t stop them. Yes, ships will be sunk, torpedoes will all be expended and they will still come by the thousands. Your real protection has always been your proximity to NATO states. The Finns though are strong for their size and would fight like the Ukrainians.

[Jersey2]

Love your tiny navy

[Soteris]

@Jersey2 What is the point of a navy without foreign holdings to patrol? Sweden only have a few islands along its coast so a few corvettes and submarines are more than enough alongside our airforce.

But that is besides the point. Russia does not have a functional navy in the first place. I mean seriously, their carrier is a floating fire hazard (more than often this is quite literally) and their ships are dilapidated junks. But the problem you fail to grasp is that naval invasions are the most difficult types of military operations there is.

D day, which was a short hop across the English Channel is perhaps the most impressive display of military operations in the history of humanity and required endless preparations, supplies and cooperation of several major countries. The fuck is Russia going to do alone? They can't even maintain their flagship that was recently sunk because half the stuff on board was offline or broken.

Russia does not have the planning, resources or personnel to pose a legitimate threat to even Swedens small army. If Russia tried to invade Sweden, even if they were able to land troops which is HIGHLY questionable, they would have such little supply and reinforcements that they would probably just get arrested by the local police or something stupid.

Also, Russia does not have thousands of ships. If you include literally everything they have it probably reaches something like 300 and that is spread around the world and only a fraction of that would be useful in a naval invasion. Point is, Russia would have to spend literally decades to even build a navy to even try invade Sweden.

[Jersey2]

As I said, Russia fights differently. They don’t need to build a thousand ships for a Navy. They will take whatever they can and run it in shore and beach it if necessary. Don’t think D-Day, think Dunkirk. They will just plop thousands of soldiers in towns along your shoreline. Gotland will be a quick easy win even though you stationed a few troops there. They fight differently and are willing to absorb losses that Sweden is not.

[Soteris]

@Jersey2 If by "Russia fights differently" you mean "Russia can't fight properly" then I agree. Sadly for them, naval invasions is one of the few operations you can't just brute force. If Russia lands troops in Sweden without the proper support then they will not be able to fight. It does not matter if Russia lands 500 or 5 000 000 troops, in fact more would just make the consequences for Russia even worse. That is the point you do not appear to get. Even if Russia managed to defeat the Swedish defenders at sea (which is HIGHLY fucking doubtful), it matters not because any forces they land will be unable to fight. They would literally just be throwing lives away.

[Jersey2]

They don’t care about throwing lives away… they just don’t care which is part of what you don’t understand about how they fight. They literally sent thousands of prisoners without training or proper weapons into Ukrainian lines so they could identify the Ukrainian positions and hit them with tank and artillery fire. You just don’t get it. Brute force does work, it’s just ex-endive in lives and they don’t care. Given your attitude, Sweden must be very unprepared which makes you a less than interesting Allie. When was the last time your country was even in real war? when was the last time Sweden had lost thousands of people in war? It must be some time back. Even the Vikings of old, your ancestors, could kick your asses with wooden boats and determination.

[Jersey2]

Expensive in lives*

[Soteris]

@Jersey2 You dont appear to get it. Its not "expensive in lives", it is impossible regardless of sacrifices. Sending more bodies just makes it worse for them rather than let them make incremental progress. And when was the last time Sweden was even in a "real war". Afghanistan 2014 as part of a NATO support mission.

Question: When was the last time USA was in a "real war"? Personally, I do not consider beating up on middle eastern or Asian farmers as "real war", that would imply a peer-to-peer combat scenario. When was the last time USA dug trenches and held off enemy armored columns of modern tanks and APCs? When was the time their airforce had to fight an equivalent force?

Quite frankly, USAs army today is not up to the task of fighting an actual peer, they have retooled their entire inventory of equipment and strategy for fighting terrorists and minor nations with asymmetrical warfare. If they were to be thrown into conflict with a threat such as what the Axis used to be back then they would get their shit pushed in for cosplaying like soldiers without actually preparing to properly fight.

The truth is, no one has fought a "Modern war". NATO can't even imagine what such a battlefield would look like so stop pretending like what they are doing is "the real shit" because it sure as hell ain't.

[Jersey2]

You are the prime example of an arm chair general. Your opinions are frankly ridiculous and i am going to have to leave this conversation now.

[Soteris]

@Jersey2 Armchair general he says while ignoring the literal first lesson of war 101, logistics. Pathetic.

[Jersey2]

I think all democratic countries should band together and it could put an end to many wars. Nothing in history has been more powerful than NATO. But all countries need to spend at least 2% or I want the US out of NATO. We can defend ourselves but Germany and other including our neighbor Canada just take advantage of us in that way and would be useless in a time of war… not just useless but a burden as they would expect to be defended. I vote for a string NATO that also stands against China or no NATO and the US becomes isolationist again focusing on trade not a huge military. We will depend on our strategic weapons (nukes) if we leave nato.

[Jersey2]

Strong nato.

[madhatters4]

they should be accepted if they want in. now should they join? i don't really know

[Avicenna]

If they're willing to spend 2% of their GDP on their military like all NATO members are supposed to, sure.

I served as a peacekeeper in the Balkans with Swedish troops and think they'd make a good addition to NATO.

[Spongebobssocks]

Cool!

[ProbablyClueless]

I don't think so, no. I think NATO in general is a bad joke, and every attempt the NATO allies make to strengthen their union is just one more obstacle to the organization's inevitable collapse.

[Jersey2]

NATO has been around for two and a half times your lifetime. It just added two new countries and six more at least want to join or partner with NATO. I don’t live nato but I don’t see it going away anytime soon unless Trump comes back in office and the Germans don’t pay their 2%.

[ProbablyClueless]

@Jersey2 Correct. It's a relic from the Cold War, but it doesn't serve much purpose moving forward. It's reflective of a strategy that assumes the US is the dominant power. The reality is that the US isn't the only dominant power, and Europe hasn't been relevant enough to carry it's own weight since WW2 either.

[Jersey2]

The US is the only super power. China is a regional power and even there they haven't done anything and will have to contend with the other countries in the geography if they do.

[ProbablyClueless]

@Jersey2 Uh... no. The US is absolutely not the only superpower. Not anymore.

[Jersey2]

Who then? Who has the ability to project power anywhere in the world? Its not china. Its not russia. Russian can't even fight next door and china was a lower rated military than russia. China couldn't even take Japan. They are too scared to take Taiwan.

[ProbablyClueless]

@Jersey2 Absolutely China; you shouldn't underestimate them. India is also a serious competitor. The fact China hasn't taken Taiwan has nothing to do with them being scared. They just know they can do it economically (the way they control America) without firing a shot.

[Jersey2]

China was a dirt field 20 years ago. Money has poured into them but they really aren’t able to fight a sustained war outside of Asia and even then that is suspect. That means they are no super power. India just has a lot of people but not much else. Even these two knock heads but no real war between them.

China would absolutely take Taiwan if they indeed were not scared. Your answer is silly. Have you even served in a combat unit? I have and you just don't seem to understand the basics.

[Jersey2]

Oh, and inhave been to both India and China multiple times. 8 for india and 5 for china.

[ProbablyClueless]

@Jersey2 I understand plenty. I especially understand that there's a hell of a lot more to war than the military technological capabilities of the country in question. China doesn't need to invade Taiwan.

[Jersey2]

Well thats good that they don't need to because Taiwan remains free of them. You and they can think whatever but Taiwan will gladly govern itself.

[AngryCarl2]

Sweden gave us Abba, so yes they should be accepted into NATO.

[Spongebobssocks]

🤣👍🏻

[Bricealan]

Probably all would be better off being in NATO IF those NATO nations would help defend those they commit to defending.

[Anonymous]

Sweden to me is a mature, sophisticated and sensible country that would fit into NATO easily. And it's the home of IKEA and Volvo, so what's not to like.
I'm sure it has local problems but each country does.

[RealMarek]

No, only because NATO is an arm of the military-industrial complex that serves to create war to raise demand for weapons, and should be disbanded.

[Cubus]

To be honest I understand why Sweden wants to be in NATO if Finland already joined.

[Soteris]

Sweden and Finland had a pact that if one country joins NATO then the other would as well.

[Anonymous]

No, their men are not suited for military service.

[ButthurtGAGpeople1]

You have no idea what you're talking about, but, yes, we should. It would prove NATO is not only still alive, it's GETTING STRONGER

[Alex-Snow]

Of course... It will be one more country to stand up to Putin

[msc545]

Not unless you think that upsetting the Russians even more is a good idea.

[virtualwasp]

yea, sweden has a lot to offer

[Ali4Sy]

It seems you love your country very much 👏

[gorydetails]

Only if they bring the bikini team back.

[Sasahara]

Yes I think so.

[Jerre]

Yes, most definitely they shud be in NATO

[DarKnight36]

Exactly Yes, Accepted

[Iron_Man]

Yes I do

[Iron_Man]

foreignpolicy.com/.../

[Spongebobssocks]

👀...

[Iron_Man]

Read away

[Spongebobssocks]

👍🏻

[Iron_Man]

Yes..

[Dargil]

Yes, but not Ukraine.

[ShadezMcgee]

Nope. Q