Sweden edges closer to NATO membership
politico.eu
politico.eu
A shame one of them had to fuck everything up.
There was little action by the UK during the annexation of Crimea (they even went on to participate in a major sporting event hosted by the invading nation; so little did the UK care about another European nation being attacked).
The UK has also walked the line of invading another NATO member because they wanted to fish in another sovereign nations waters.
My point is that the UK doesn’t care about other nations, and I can see numerous situations where they will fail to act if a fellow NATO member is attacked.
The UK didn’t need to send an army to Ukraine to protect them from the Russian invasion, but they should have at least sent a strong message to Russia that this would not be tolerated. A perfect opportunity for such a message was presented when Russia hosted the World Cup the following year... The message: “We are just gonna say this is not OK, but really Russia can do whatever they want”.
Jimmy Carter actually boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That was a stupid move and accomplished precisely nothing.
The UK officials (as did other western European officials) did boycott the world cup. It is a really weak message. A real message would have been to boycott the world cup entirely (not just the UK, but all of Europe). It would not only have sent a strong message to the Russian government—but more importantly the Russian public would have hated it. Imagine your country can finally hold the World Cup, only to have your military ruin it by doing something stupid like annexing a peninsula you don’t care about.
NATO absolutely should go.
> It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China.
I don't really think so, because in that case there is/was wage arbitrage. Yes the US is subsidizing on an ongoing basis, but that doesn't quite feel the same for reasons I cannot articulate.
We still need standardization, exercises, and common command structures.
If you build that outside the NATO framework collaboration with the US in future minor peace keeping deployments will likely be harder.
Russia is the only threat. EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare. Even limited involvement in Syria is wearing down their aircraft.
European defence has structural problem: scattering military resources all over the Europe. Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there. Russian amphibious attack from the North Atlantic is not a threat.
They are creating plenty of pain with low intensity tactics.
If Russian green men cross into Poland, Poland is not responding with low intensity. They mobilize the whole country to fight to fight high intensity warfare until Russians are thrown out.
“Belgium retired its last operational Leopard 1 MBTs in 2014. Some were kept in inventory for training and research purposes.”
And Russia gets 30 trained soldiers for the price of 1 NATO soldier
Feel the difference
> Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare
You are saying this about a country with the biggest tank armies anywhere in the world.
What you are saying is laughable to anybody with a dime of military education.
What you are saying is laughable to anybody with a dime of military education.
I didn't laugh, but I did raise an eyebrow. I just kind of chalked it up to the lack of military officers who comment on HN.
Russia has 12,000+ tanks only in paper. Russia has only few tank divisions in working condition and equipped. Rest is just Soviet era junk that has not moved in decades. The military modernization program has stalled.
Russia can defend itself just fine. What Russia can't do is to large scale warfare attacking others. Any mobilization in Russia that is not purely defensive in the nature would fail. Reservist would simply not show up to fight for Putin.
How many European countries have countries have even 1 tank division?
Russia may have 12,000 pieces of junk tanks + 40,300 of junk APCs, IFVs, ARVs, and engineering vehicles + double of all of that in reserve, salvage, and storage, but who else do you think have?
Russia's Achilles heel is low morale, and low number of highly trained specialist, especially pilots. Second, is its military logistics (which itself is bigger, and better than that of most NATO countries)
Latest tank modifications Russia ordered was not some rocket munition, but a drive by wire system for tanks, so one can drive a tank like driving a car, as Russia for decades had more pieces of military hardware than pilots for them.
Russia has: 550 T-90's total. 450 T-80's active, only 170 upgraded. Few thousand outdated tanks unworkable condition. Then maybe up to ~500 T-72B3 (somewhat modernized and in workable conditions). Rest is just junk not touched or upgraded for 30 years after Soviet Union collapsed.
Poland+Germany together have 500 Leopard 2's. France has 400 Leclercs. Britain 200 Challenger 2's. (I'm not counting old but modernized tanks Poland has).
Even from my dated high school military lessons from around 2004-2006, I know the official doctrine of Russian tank forces is to avoid tank on tank combat with equal, or superior tanks.
Anything more substantial than 3rd generation tanks will not be engaged with guns, but with few heavy ATGMs per target from 5+ kms away. All T-72 in Russian service can fire 120mm ATGMs, even T-55s are supposed to have some 100mm ATGMs for them.
A wide front-offensive will certainly decrease the efficiency of anti-tank weapons on the defending side, and let the majority of attacking force to pass.
Biggest anti-tank unit today is an attack helicopter, hence Russian zeal to develop things like Panzir SPAG.
Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover.
Unless they can build a staging ground at a leisure pace in an ally country. Not to say that it was building up its already significant military logistics.
Now, why do you think such a such a force needs even bigger logistics buildup, far exceeding defensive use scenario?
All past of your comments on military strategy give off so much of youthful maximalism. In conflict, always expect the worst past holistic comparison. All things that "could never happen" according to military analysts do eventually happen.
A saying is you never expect the enemy to attack where you expect him the most.
Russia has tactical nuclear weapons to supplement their ability to act outside their borders in high intensity warfare.
Having a robust deterrent is the best way to prevent high intensity warfare in the first place.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hongkong...
>By increasing the tempo of these operations, the PLA can inflict disproportionate stress on Taiwan’s much smaller force. The Chinese military has more than 2,000 fighters, bombers and other warplanes, compared with Taiwan’s 400 fighters, according to the Pentagon’s annual report on Chinese military power, published in September. Over time, fuel costs, pilot fatigue and wear and tear on Taiwanese aircraft will threaten the readiness of the island’s air force if this pressure continues, according to Taiwanese and U.S. military analysts. The constant threat is also designed to exact a psychological toll on the defenders, they say.
Russia struggles to maintain and repair their existing aircraft. Even increasing the rate of intercepts in the peacetime increases the attrition rate to unsustainable level.
This is wrong. The best way to prevent warfare is to disarm the nations.
Before WWII, Germany was forbidden from remaking an army. It still did. Where Europe & US could have played deterrence by forcing Germany to stop, they preferred to appease things. We all know what happened.
When you're in front of a bully, you might talk first and ask them once to turn it down. If that tactic doesn't work, disarmament is obedience.
I think it is a mistake to anthropomorphize nation states this way. Explaining international relations in terms of personal relations is misleading at best. A bully does not control a nuclear arsenal, nation states do.
Would troops and tanks even be relevant in a conflict between the NATO and Russia in the age of nuclear weapons?
If Russia uses nuke against NATO, there would be no road back to normal until there is regime change or surrender. Russia completely isolated from the rest of the world would have famine in few years even if NATO would use only isolate Russian from the rest of the world. Even China would be forced to choose to trade between the West and rest of the Asia or Russia.
For America, it's uncertain what's more bad, giving China East Asia, or Western Europe to Russia.
Russia with West Europe will still be the same starving Russia, with even more depleted stocks of military hardware.
China with complete reign in the region means them being few years from building a blue water navy, and transoceanic landing force.
> China will have an effective blue water navy in a few years regardless
US having bases to at least blunt, and slow offensive staging by China in case of war will make all the difference vs. not having them at all.
One of the big reasons to put together a competent military and logistics operation is to help neighboring countries become more stable. Without stability and peace economic growth is tenuous.
It's doubtful that international coalitions like we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Kosovo would be possible without NATO command structure.
Am I wrong?
Getting military branches from various countries to collaborate can't be easy -- certainly not without prior training and trust.
In writing NATO says they are a defense pact, but history shows it is very much an invasion force.
Your not doing your cause any favor by pointing to another military alliance to proof a point. Too the contrary what you say about the Warsaw Pact is my point exactly. Military alliances are dangerous and need to be condemned by the UN.
Even the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is made more complex and harder to resolve peacefully because of relations to Russia and especially Turkey.
There is a reason why many nations are currently condemning Israel’s opening relations to Morocco. It is seen as a normalization of (a) Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories and (b) normalization of Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara. So if a war breaks out in either of these places, it is gonna be more devastating as a result.
If say the Polisario front starts an armed insurgence for a Sahrawi liberation in Western Sahara and it is met with brutal forces from the Moroccan military, a peaceful resolution seems less likely because now Israel has stakes in allowing Moroccan military to advance as brutally as they wish—knowing that similar brutality might be preferably against an armed Palestinian insurgence.
But, I mean, sure... The same thing can be said about Mexico having military relations with the USA and Canada if each of them is going to acknowledge the rights of the other to fail to uphold treaties for the indigenous population.
Elsewhere in this thread I’m giving the UK a similar “singling out”, but that is unfair, since France is just as guilty of the things I say there. Alas the UK and France are both NATO members (and both control nuclear weapons), I wonder if their colonies would be liberated by now, or if we had finally enacted an international nuclear weapons ban if it weren’t for the countries most guilty of doing precisely that banding together with a huge and deadly military to back it up.
The Syrian conflict seems to be completely devoid of any influence by countries in alliance. Russia is just looking to sell gear to Syria as they always have, and to poke a finger in the eye of Turkey. They also have long craved a naval base in the Med and succeeded. Turkey has geopolitical ambitions as well, not wanting to see a Kurdish state get developed, plus wanting to flex some muscle. I don't see any treaties or alliances having a significant role in that conflict at all.
I think that is actually why there are international organizations, like the WTO, WHO, UN, International Criminal Court, etc. So political conflicts between nation states can be resolved peacefully.
If no nation had an army every conflict between nations would have to be resolved peacefully. This Clausewitz quote—or this interpretation of it—is simply wrong.
If an alliance is credible, then it's a solid deterrent.
The alliances in 1914 was less credible than NATO. Many were secret, as was mobilization plans and implications of such plans. It's my impression that the list of things triggered WWI is very long :)
I don't have the evidence to say that it will show otherwise. But we know that any participation in international organizations reduces risks of war, whether by correlation or causation I don't recall.
Either way, armed conflict is becoming less frequent and less violent. One could argue that progress could come faster without NATO, but given that we have no evidence that a dramatically different cause of action will reduce risk of war, and we know that current trajectory is bending towards less war. Maybe staying on the current trajectory isn't so bad :)
Generally speaking, any kind of quick major changes tends to cause conflicts. So even if we did want to end NATO, it's probably be best to do it slowly.
Ideally, we would just slowly extend NATO to cover all countries. That way nobody can attack anyone else :) I would want countries to be reasonably democratic before they join though...
Isn't the only reason NATO was involved that it was the only organization that could coordinate such a coalition quickly?
Point being: the mutual defense agreement is just one part of NATO. The organizational capabilities is another.
You might want to abolish alliances -- but to some that might seem as realistic as ending armed conflict.
(Personally, I hope/think armed conflict is increasingly a thing of the past -- but it'll probably take a bit more time)
At it's heart yes. But didn't that bring along the capability to form coalitions?
If we dismantled NATO what framework would a wide western coalition, as was deployed in Libya rely on?
Can you magically make distinct militaries of different counties coordinate logistics and operations together?
My point is that, besides the mutual defense agreement, NATO coordinates training and integration of capabilities across borders, without which I doubt we launch coalitions as we did in Libya or Kosovo.
Both of these followed a UN resolution. In Libya there were participation from non-NATO members, yet these coalitions were NATO-led, why? Probably because NATO was the only organization with experience, training and infrastructure to coordinate such a coalition.
They got to have it both ways, official neutrality and yet they were closely tied to the west, NATO nations, and had assurances that they would be provided some level of protections as well.
For a close to border nation at that time I think that is a desirable position. Provides at least the idea that there may be some flexibility for them.
Also, Sweden used to make its own tank (at least in the WW2 and early cold war era) and still makes its own jets. It's getting harder and more expensive to make your own military equipment. You can probably make your next jet in a consortium of other European powers, or buy from them in an alliance.
Whether Turkey should be in NATO is hard to say without having a deep understanding of the situation. Turkey staying in NATO has pros and cons.
That would change if Russia is not your enemy, but the entire raison d'etre of NATO is to prevent war with Russia.
A submarine blockade can, like the one employed by Germany in WW2.
Russia and, certainly, China, would still be 'adversaries' if they became liberal democracies because that would not change the geopolitics, diverging interests, and views.
Likewise for Turkey. The key is that it is currently pursuing a policy of assertiveness as a regional power that clashes with the interests of other NATO members.
Sure it does: as with most UN “legislation” it would be adopted by the GA adopting treaty text and member states signing and ratifying the treaty.
> or any power to back it up.
That is the more relevant problem, especially since most of the UN’s power comes through...military alliances supportive of UN goals.
A UN with teeth wouldn’t be a very good discussion table.
Historically and mathematically military build up leads to war. There is no point in military alliance unless you intend to use it. I say that peace has (almost) prevailed in Europe despite of NATO, not because of it
Mathematics has nothing to do with it. And historically, military draw down also leads to war.
Or, a better explanation might be, historically, passage of time leads to war.
My point exactly. Say that wars break out naturally with some Poisson-like distribution. When the war breaks out, the scale of it is gonna be in relation to the current arsenal of the warring parties.
So given your comment, I can revise my comment to say:
Historically—and mathematically—military build up leads more devastating wars.
Although that is not entirely true. As if nations didn’t hold militaries, there wouldn’t be wars between nations.
While it hasn't worked out all that well in practice, if you read the charter carefully, the UN is, among other things, a military alliance with a unified military command.
It seems odd that you've singled out Turkey. But I guess bashing Turkey is nowawadays a common Western sport.
[1] https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_indust...
NATO was and still is a liberal democratic Western nations military alliance about standardizing military doctrine and protocol. If not NATO, something like it needs to exist as a bulwark against Russia and China.
In order to maintain power, Islam is being used to promote national identity and ethnocentrism. It is also being heavily taught in schools.
This is a pretty good write up: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2019.1...
Probably the best summary is a kletocratic state that leans Islamic and authoritarian, but never is completely Islamic or authoritarian.
Since the Bosphorus/black sea region is vulnerable to a blockade traffic to the Mediterranean sea can be easily closed by the US Navy in times of war regardless of the political regime that controls the straits. Turkey was far more geopolitically important when Russia had a Mediterranean ally(france) and control of the mediterranean was contested.
All other NATO members are engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of NATO
And on top of that, NATO cannot hold Greece, Eastern European members, and France from backstabbing Turkey, when Turkey is effectively Europe's only policeman in the mediterranean
Italy? Greece? Spain? France?
Turkey is the only reason why Europeans didn't end up with Russian military base in Libya.
Now the Baltic states are not in the rigid framework of the USSR, and potentially threatened by Russia. Sweden may not care to intervene, but the way for Russia to secure the Baltic States from NATO is to seize Gotland. That is something Russia has the capability to do, and Sweden is not very well prepared to defend against. NATO membership would relieve a lot of that risk.
NATO is actually a positive organization in terms of promoting the peace. It is and probably always will be totally ineffective as an offensive alliance. But it is unbeatable as a defensive alliance. So everybody wants to be a member to save on defense spending. I don't think that is awful.
NATO was preparing for Russian attack through North-Eastern Europe effectively since its creation, and been keeping new Baltic members under spotlight for the last 20 years. At least, these countries will fight — something that is not so certain about countries down south.
Where NATO needs to look now is its soft Southern underbelly. You now have a lot of weak, assorted statelets, ripe for the taking there. None of them will stand even a single tank division.
They don't need to if any of many loose states there let themselves to be turned into Russian staging ground.
Not a stretch given how fantastically corrupt governments there are, with Moldovia, and its breakaway regions in particular.
There was even a precedent: Montenegro once almost let Russian to buy a military base there + humongous lots of lands adjacent to it, allegedly, in exchange for a laughable amount of money going to families of previous cabinet members.
History has shown otherwise. Every single of NATO’s mission has been on the offensive. Be it enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya (which requires suspiciously many areal bombing), naval missions to protect selected cargo vessels from pirates in the Gulf of Aden or intimidating training missions in Iraq. Even Afghanistan was an offensive mission (with a defensive excuse).
NATO’s offensive operations outnumber defensive missions 6 to 0.
It was 'neutrality' in some ways, but cooperation with NATO that seemed very much not neutral.
EU has mutual defence clause similar to NATO. France decided to invoke EU's Defence Clause instead of NATO Article 5 after the Paris attack.
For those who want to have some more insight into the convoluted history of Swedish politics I recommend reading Aron Flam's "This is a Swedish Tiger" [1], a book which uses a war-time slogan to delve into the history of Swedish nationalism/corporatism.
[1] https://aronflam.com/merchandise/f6onzxj7whzph8klyf0du6iiu80...
The successor to Gripen won’t be a solo project, it’ll be built in collaborations like with BAE in the Tempest program. NATO is more than the US, so buying Dassault/EADS/Airbus is “Just as NATO” as buying Lockheed and Boeing.
I doubt there would be many permanent US forces in Sweden considering the Norwegian forces are now being cut.
NOT putting American bases in your country is capitulation as history shows that Russia is bound to attack sooner or later. Ukraine is currently partly occupied, after many years of 'friendship'
Sweden is already NATO compliant and does not buy junk from Russia
Not so hypothetical when we remember what Russia did in Georgia, then Ukraine, then Syria etc, etc...