Swedish PM rejects opposition calls to consider joining NATO | Hacker News Reader

Swedish PM rejects opposition calls to consider joining NATO

reuters.com

70 pointsmudro_zboris84 comments

It is the right call for now. Joining NATO should not be a knee-jerk response, but a measured and considered thing that can wait until after the general election later this year.

Joining NATO risks Russian attempts to retaliate, right now Russia is rather busy, seems like the ideal time if you're going to do it.

This is much less of an issue for Sweden and Finland than other non-NATO members, as we're an EU state and article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty obligates other EU members to assist in case of military attack.

So any Russian military retaliation that occurred between Sweden announcing they intended to join NATO but before they officially did would, in effect, be an attack on the whole EU block. Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO.

Finally, Sweden has several bi-lateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and US. It's obviously not technically the same as being a NATO member, but many people in the Swedish defence establishment regard it as closely equivalent.

Assist doesn't do it for me. I find it near impossible to believe that were Finland attacked, the Central European militaries would be doing anything different from what they're doing now. Assist would equal hand them some equipment and root for them.

I think you serialise misinterpret the sentiment in Central Europe. Several people are already seriously considering if more intervention is necessary. However, the fear of nuclear WW3 is keeping that in check. If Putin was to attack attack Finland or Sweden it would be clear to everyone that he is going to continue further and further.

Apart from that, after this war (no matter if he wins or not) the Russian military would be in no state to attack anyone except maybe moldavia. In fact there was a leaked FSB memo just two days ago, which was highly critical of the invasion and estimated that even if they win they would need 500,000 permanently in Ukraine to "keep" it. That is significantly more than half of the active military in russia.

could you link to the FSB memo? I really want to read it.

that jives with my armchair understanding of Russia's forces as well. they simply don't have the resources to take and hold much more than Ukraine. drafting extra people would be very unpopular. their economy can't handle growing the military, either. they just aren't in the state Germany was when they invaded Poland.

maybe they can threaten nukes, but even if NATO doesn't meet that challenge I can't imagine Russia successfully taking the Baltics with the threat of nukes alone.

Here’s a translation: https://pastebin.com/2agMRGmd

> Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO.

NATO's most important member is the US, which isn't party to these European agreements. The same escalation risks that preclude the US fighting for Ukraine would probably prevent the US from fighting for Sweden.

Sweden has to join NATO to get the unambiguous commitment of the US, and to put the decision of running escalation risks on the Russian side.

Strictly speaking, EU military assets would be sufficient to defend Europe if marshalled in a unified manner.

>EU members to assist in case of military attack

Treaty text specifies: Aid and assist. Likewise, the second paragraph specifies the NATO remain foundation of NATO member states' security.

It remains untested if "aid and assist" means fighter planes fighting sorties, boots on the ground, or nuclear umbrella. There is very little formal structure for EU military operations, because most member states coordinate via NATO structures.

North Atlantic Treaty is very clear: it says that all member states are in war if one is attacked and specifies use of armed force. While it hasn't been tested either, NATO has the genuine military organization, armed forces and nuclear warheads to implement it.

> So any Russian military retaliation that occurred between Sweden announcing they intended to join NATO but before they officially did would, in effect, be an attack on the whole EU block. Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO.

People really should read the NATO treaty. It fits on about 2 sheets of A4. Article 6 makes very explicit what constitutes an attack on a NATO member, and it's not "an attack on another EU country that's not in NATO". It's on the territory of /NATO members/.

"article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty obligates other EU members to assist in case of military attack."

It's a sentence in a document.

The legitimacy of these 'mutual defence treaties' is a function of legitimacy on the ground, history, disproportionate power etc..

Wait to see what happens if Georgia joins the EU, then the leader does something dumb, Putin II invades ... will Europea attack? Can they? What will they do? Can they agree on a response? How to coordinate?

EU is a political body with some other aspirations, but the 'Hard Power' is NATO.

Not sure if it matters at this point if Sweden is a member, because I believe that Russia invading Sweden or Finland would be the same thing as invading NATO.

From a military-strategic point of view? Absolutely.

But this is a political decision that should not be taken in haste, every choice here has significant ramifications and allowing for a less hasty debate is a good thing in my opinion.

This has been debated in Sweden (and Finland) for... How many decades now? Four? Five? Even longer? The last one, AFAICR. How many decades more would your "less hasty debate" take; another five or six? And when shit happens on the ground, all those decades of blathering turn out to be worthless.

The correct response is not another sixty years of dithering that will at some point turn out to be equally worthless, but to get off one's indecisive arse and join NATO. The best time to do so was years ago; the second best was yesterday. The best remaining realistically achievable time is now.

Maybe NATO could start offering an easy-to-cancel 14 day free trial of their services. It seems like a loophole that you just need to attack a country that wants to join NATO before they've signed the paperwork.

Join now and we'll send you five missiles we think you'll like every month, but you have to ship them back within 30 days or we'll bill you for them. Sign up a neighboring country and get 10 free missiles!!

next day missile delivery

I think the USA can outperform Amazon here, they can offer same-hour delivery of advanced missiles.

[ ] Parcel didn’t arrive

[ ] Parcel arrived damaged

[X] Parcel damaged my house/city/country

Is there any downside whatsoever to joining NATO? Even military expenditure shouldn't be an issue as most countries don't actually fulfill their military spending obligations.

You might have to join a war that you don't want to get involved in? That's a pretty big downside.

It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of being militarily neutral.

> It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of being militarily neutral.

It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of craven acquiescence to whoever is the biggest bully in the neighbourhood at the moment; a history of being rather Deutschgesinnt until about 1942-43, and of "always having been on the Allies' side in spirit!" after that. A history of selling iron ore for Krupp guns and allowing trains transporting German soldiers to and from northern Norway/Finland.

And after WW2, a record-beating history of painting the holier-than-thou Sverigebilden -- the international image of Sweden -- around the world, and perhaps above all indoctrinating her own population in it.

Not really a history to be all that proud of, or worth clinging on to.

"Alliansfrihet i fred syftande till neutralitet i krig"[1] has been a cornerstone of Sweden's foreign policy for generations. As a Swede, I'm all for reasoned, measured debate about the pros and cons of joining NATO. It's certainly not something to decide in the heat of the moment.

Then there's the fact that despite its recent smaller slice of Sweden's electoral pie, the Social Democrats are the party to decide this. Andersson has a very large faction of Euroskeptics and NATO skeptics in her party, and going against them risks causing a ton of dissent in an election year.

I'm personally for larger defense spending in Sweden, and if a NATO membership enforces that (we Swedes are quite good at following our international commitments) it's a good thing.

[1] "Avoid alliances in times of peace to remain neutral in war"

That was immediately after getting formal guarantee by the UK that in case of an attack, the UK will immediately defend Sweden (which weakened the need to join NATO substantially).

This is misleading. I believe the wording was "help"/"assist", not "defend" and I do not believe anything has been formalised?

Pretty much. There is definitely no "formal guarantee", just a sound bite from a press conference:

https://www.thelocal.se/20220304/britain-promises-military-a...

Misleading how? It's exactly what the swedish news are saying: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sensationellt-uttalande-o...

"Sverige ingår i samma familj, så vi skulle hjälpa Sverige. Vi skulle göra allt vi kan, både militärt och på andra sätt” "

"Britternas, nu officiellt uttalade militära stöd till Sverige..."

Do you see anything about a signed agreement anywhere? All you have there is one sentence uttered by a British minister at a press conference, and for all you know, "military" assistance could mean exactly the same as for Ukraine: sending weapons.

Misleading exactly in the way I said: the wording used is “help”, not defend, and nothing is formalised. Ukraine is getting “help” as well, but it is not exactly NATO article 5 protection.

Was this the same kind of agreement as this one made with Ukraine when they got rid of their nuclear weapons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

Read the the agreement again. It only mandates that the countries that signed the agreement wouldn't be the ones to attack Ukraine - it didn't include any obligation to defend them.

> It only mandates that the countries that signed the agreement wouldn't be the ones to attack Ukraine

Shows exactly how much international agreements are worth: One of the countries that signed the agreement was Russia.

I'm all for the UK stepping up to give Ukraine more assistance but it's not (yet) justified by the Budapest memorandum; it only guarantees assistance in the case of attack by nuclear weapons.

The UK said the same to Australia. No one came during after the bombing of Darwin , in fact it was AU troops that ended up helping out the empire.

Also, I think the Swedish military would likely be a very formidable opponent to anyone trying to invade Sweden. The tricky part would be if Russia simply fired rockets or missiles into Sweden (but I don't see any point to them doing that).

> Also, I think the Swedish military would likely be a very formidable opponent to anyone trying to invade Sweden.

Muahahahahaa... Maybe as recently as the late 1970s or even, at a stretch, early-to-mid 1980s. But after that, newsflash for you: Sweden pretty much got rid of its erstwhile impressive defense.

NATO a purely defensive alliance. They do never attack first. Why would anyone feel threatened by them? Let's google NATO military operations.. Wait a minute!

NATO is on the side of democracy and human rights. That's why it includes countries such as Turkey which has never waged an aggressive war on the pretext of protecting its own people, and then continuing the military occupation until the present day[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

Then it is a good thing that NATO is a defensive alliance and not a military alliance because the US did not show up to help Turkey when they invaded Cyprus.

Can you point to a NATO military operation which was A). offensive and B). not unanimously requested by the UN security council (on which Russia and China sit)?

Defining “offensive” here as “not defending against an actual or imminent attack on a NATO member or other internatkonally-recognized state”, the NATO-Yugoslavia war of 1999 would qualify as it was not requested by the UNSC at all.

Also Libya was 10-0-5 in the UNSC, with both Russia and China abstaining (P5 abstentions are special, in that they are conventionally construed as negative votes but declination to exercise veto, which is not formally a separate action from a regular no vote.)

> Also Libya was 10-0-5 in the UNSC

Resolution was about no fly zone, and stopping attacks on civilians. It is a subject of discussion if NATO expanded operation to extra actions.

Iraq (explicit condemnation from Kofi Anan), Yugoslavia (China and Russia said they would veto any resolution to send military aid), Libya (China and Russia abstained), Syria (no UN resolution, Russia firmly opposed).

In fact, I don't even know of a defensive military operation from NATO. Perhaps Afghanistan could be counted?

Yes, the bombing of Yugoslavia. I was 5 when that happened hiding in basement like poor Ukrainians do right now. Feel free to do some googling on your own, there are many cases like: Libya, Syria. Who will be next?

What did they expect when they were doing ethnic cleansing in Europe without having nuclear capability?

It is called "the NATO bombing" but not all NATO members participated. NATO's involvement was based around Article 4 which only says the member states can "consult together." This implies that it was more of a United States + select allies bombing than a NATO bombing, because the US did most of it, and got other countries to participate through means that existed independently of NATO.

Why, then, would it be called the NATO bombing? Probably because A. it distances it from entities that American voters are familiar with, (compare "Bill Clinton's bombing") and B. it creates a smokescreen of weird international law issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing...

That is a bit like saying only the executor of the gang has attacked you, but they did a vote before and nobody dared stoping Clinton, and NATO shares funds don't they?

So there wasn't an outcry, let alone sanctions or consequences.

Everybody knows it was Clinton and advisors, the bombing was still a NATO bombing. You can't have it both ways, make the us hide behind the NATO skirt and say not everyone has participated.

It goes to show the institution is biased and has no teeth other than the American ones.

NATO is and was a defensive alliance. The idea that NATO is the military of the western world was briefly useful for American, err, propaganda ("look, the whole world supports these bombings, it's not just us"), and is now being used to serve Russian propaganda ("help help the belligerent gang of nations wants to set up bases within driving distance of Moscow.") but was never really true.

If NATO confers any offensive power, it's to let member states push harder on nonmilitary avenues because it gives them less to fear in terms of military reprisals. Otherwise, there's article 4 which allows member states which are independently deciding to act to do so with some association with the NATO flag. When nations send delegates to sit in a big room and vote they are expressing their policies, not deciding them.

>You can't have it both ways, make the us hide behind the NATO skirt and say not everyone has participated.

I'm trying to have it the second way. The US was only able to cover its action with the flag of NATO insofar as people haven't read what Article 4 says countries can do (basically, talk to each other).

NATO did not operate in Syria.

I believe there is only one, the bombing of Yugoslavia.

What about Afghanistan and Iraq?

Afghanistan was not an offensive NATO operation (being a direct response to an attack on a NATO member), and was supported by a unanimous UNSC Resolution (1368).

NATO never conducted an offensive operation in Iraq, though some NATO members (separate from the alliance) did.

> Afghanistan was not an offensive NATO operation (being a direct response to an attack on a NATO member)

Though Taliban didn't attack US. Also, was there any NATO due process for this?

> was supported by a unanimous UNSC Resolution (1368)

I think that resolution said nothing about invasion into Afghanistan..

NATO was not involved in Iraq, though many members were under the banner of the "coalition of the willing".

Afghanistan was not an offensive war but mutual defense invoked over article 5. We can debate whether that covered the duration of the war, but when article 5 was invoked it was not seen as controversial nor viewed as an offensive war.

> Afghanistan was not an offensive war but mutual defense invoked over article 5. We can debate whether that covered the duration of the war, but when article 5 was invoked it was not seen as controversial nor viewed as an offensive war.

I have heard this said before, but it was never explained to me how invading another country is considered defense and not offense.

That's basically the argument Putin is using for invading Ukraine, the best defense is offense

> NATO was not involved in Iraq, though many members were under the banner of the "coalition of the willing".

The “coalition of the willing” was largely propaganda; only four countries (3 of which were NATO members) were involved in the invasion.

NATO completely destroyed the country of Libya.

They literally asked for NATO to stay/help longer:

> Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[39] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[40]

And NATO didn't start civil unrest.

After the protests, individual countries took the lead to help and other ones asked NATO to take over as condition to join ( eg. Italy).

So the Libyans asked NATO to stay after NATO worked to kill the previous leader? You see why that doesn't pass muster right? That's like "asking" for protection from the mob after the previous owner of your shop got his legs broken.

Extension for 2 months was requested.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i...

> Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[39] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[40]

Libyan volunteers ( i suppose civilians) where literally the majority of the troops against Khadaffi ( > 200 k. )

Air support was by countries, they did not do boots on the ground.

> Many states and supranational bodies condemned Gaddafi's government over disputed allegations of air attacks on civilian targets within the country.

This was preceeded by a civilian uprising before any foreign country assisting.

You should also check out the list of wars involving Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Sweden and notice the large overlap recently. That Sweden isn't part of the defensive alliance doesn't mean they don't participate in NATO offenses.

So if China and Russia wanted to form a defensive military alliance with Mexico and start placing weapons for defense, you'd be cool with it?

I'm not actually suggesting this, just pointing out the issue with your argument.

> So if China and Russia wanted to form a defensive military alliance with Mexico and start placing weapons for defense, you'd be cool with it?

Maybe they should, when they get rid of the drug cartels.

Finland had the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War with Russia and lost territory.

Anyone know what the sentiment in Finland is over the territory loss is, given the current situation? I don't know a ton about it, but it seems very similar to what Russia is doing with Ukraine.

It's pretty much accepted as gone. There is romanticization of Karelia in folk culture, but the country as a whole has moved on. Disclaimer: I'm not Finnish, just an ex-pat living there.

Amusing side note: some years ago a Finnish politician suggested trading the Åland Islands to Russia in trade for Karelia. It created quite a brouhaha :)

Kalevala, the national epic is Karelian. My hope is that Republic of Karelia can reunite with Finland when Russian Federation disintegrates completely.

It's inhabited by Russians now, so you might have to, um, rearrange people.

Translation: Russia has been absolutely crippled by sanctions so the threat has passed, meaning we don't have to do anything.

I read your comment as sarcastic and in this sense you don't warrant the downvotes.

But I don't disagree that politicians are quite weak in taking these bold steps.

Correct, with a side dish of cynical disgust.

At least Sweden's potential membership is less complicated than Turkey or Ukraine. People got real nervous with Erdogan and while Ukraine may be a democratic country, it's also not a wealthy, liberal country. Internal EU and NATO relations are going to look very different after this.

> At least Sweden's potential membership is less complicated than Turkey or Ukraine.

You do realize that Turkey has been a member state of NATO for 70 years now, yes?

Of course but if you read closely, I mentioned Erdogan, who purged secular military leadership, started buying Russian SAMs, and bombed US-backed Kurdish fighters. It makes for super awkward dinners back at the NATO clubhouse.

And while I'm 110% rooting for Ukraine to kick Russia out, EU membership for other Eastern European countries has not been an easy road. Now toss in non-military third rail value systems like LGBTQ rights and abortion.

I think "less complicated" is a fair description.

Please don't conflate Poland and Ukraine.

Poland is in the EU and is starkly against abortion and LGBT rights due to the current government being quite nationalistic and Catholic.

Ukraine is more secular. It is not a completely safe haven for LGBT, but it's not ideologically against it, just the usual grass-root homophobia that is being educated away; abortion and women rights has never been a stumbling block for Ukrainians.

My experience as well, Ukrainians tend to be more libertarian but Poles much more often conservative, culturally it's completely different.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220308164842/https://www.reute...

See also: Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of the European Union

Better to keep that option in you back pocket. As long as you are not NATO Russia has an interest not to provoke you because you could join NATO.

Russia constantly provoke Swedish defense. Submarines, espionage, encroach on Swedish airspace with bombers.

That’s short-term thinking. How long does that tactic offer protection? Meanwhile Russia rebuilds.

Swedish neutrality worked through two world wars and the cold war after that. Whether or not joining NATO is beneficial for Sweden, I have no idea. Deciding right now, after not even two weeks of war in Ukraine, seems rushed so. Rushing this kind of stuff is usually a bad idea.

> Swedish neutrality worked through two world wars

Swedish "neutrality" in at least the second world war was a joke and a disgrace.

No, its actually the opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com