[INTPenis]

As a Swede this makes me happy, partially because Finland shares a lot of their border with Russia and can now feel safe knowing they have the might of 30 nations behind them, but also because we're now surrounded by NATO countries. So no need for us to join, right? Right?!

Let's remain neutral and a free haven for political dissidents and potential refugees of the future, right?!!

[mongol]

As a Swede I disgree on the strongest. What do you want to be neutral about? That time is past us. We belong in the company of European democracies that stand together against authoritarian aggressions.

[tpmx]

> Let's remain neutral

Thankfully that opinion represent a minority here in Sweden nowadays. Good riddance.

The opinion on NATO vs "neutrality" after the Ukraine invasion was, to borrow a phrase from another comment in this thread, a mask off event.

Also: If NATO can't ratify Sweden we need to look at other ways to develop a nuclear deterrence strategy.

[coffeebeqn]

The old joke goes that swedens ground forces are Finland and that’s why they only have an Air Force and a navy

[dralley]

Sweden also has a hilarious(ly large) amount of armored vehicles for the size of their army.

[yeahwhatever10]

Is that how NATO is spoken about in Europe, that it is the might of 30 nations and not just the US?

[yamtaddle]

The US is obviously the global Big Dog, but NATO's got three other top-ten-by-expenditure militaries in it, plus two more of the very-small count of global nuclear powers (Britain, France), and three of maybe a half-dozen countries with notable navies that aren't the US (Britain, France, Italy). Expanding to look at the top-20 by expenditure, you pick up another five entries that are NATO members.

The rest of NATO gives you basically another China's worth of military (they're #2 by spending), so it's not nothing, to put it mildly.

The geography controlled by and the economic power of the bloc is also important, for logistical reasons. Having not just open trade and maybe some donations in wartime but outright military support for your supply lines is huge, plus intel sharing and such.

[dijit]

Like all things such as this, it's controversial and there is no such thing as a unified vision.

For some people, yes... In fact US involvement is largely a controversial topic because joining NATO, to some people and politicians, is tantamount to putting US military bases in your country.

The reality is, when people talk about the benefits of NATO they will strongly lean on the fact that it's many countries in a pact together. Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.

[red-iron-pine]

> Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.

Too bad their funding didn't match that rhetoric until after Russia was already invading Ukraine. It'll be years yet before Germany's military will be up to snuff, and outside of France, the UK, and Poland, most of the NATO armies would struggle if they encountered any resistance on-par with what the Russians are putting out.

Nor are their logistics and production capable of keeping up w/ the high-intensity peer/near-peer fight that we're seeing in UKR.

[dijit]

2% of GDP is the recommended amount, Ukraine managed to hold them back before financial aid came to bear with around 3%.

UK spends 2.2% (an all time low!), France just under 2%. These are much larger economies so expenditure is definitely greater than Ukraines in absolute terms.

Are you suggesting that they should pay more? Why? Seems like the current amount is effective.

[machiaweliczny]

If US backs from NATO expect nukes in every country.

It's already bad for us in Poland to not have nukes and capability to nuke Moscov at will. We were developing nukes in 80s but guy got assasinated (either RU or US).

[relaxing]

> We were developing nukes in 80s but guy got assasinated (either RU or US).

Link? I’d love to read that story.

[dudek1337]

Found this, you'd need to translate: https://www.focus.pl/artykul/cala-prawda-o-programie-jadrowy...

[tomatotomato37]

Considering most of the US's military might is an ocean or two away, having partners in the immediate area is still considered a major boon

[asynchronous]

Genuinely curious about this as well

[BurningFrog]

Two Things Can Be True:

NATO is a military alliance of 30 nations.

The US armed forces are 75% of NATO's military power.

[INTPenis]

Not really. Those who are pro-NATO don't really care about such details.

Me personally I totally acknowledge the largest military in the world.

[bart_spoon]

The US may be the bulk of the military might backing NATO, but it’s the collectiveness of the alliance is a pretty important piece IMO. If the US were to some way be compromised, say, through a debilitating first strike (unlikely), or Trump-esque domestic factors making them unreliable, you still have a huge, powerful coalition.

[bee_rider]

Nobody expects the attack from Kaliningrad!

[INTPenis]

It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.

[red-iron-pine]

The only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.

[INTPenis]

Yeah but then it's game over. I used to worry about nukes, especially with all the suicidal people in the world, but then I realized that it's not worth worrying about because there's no way out. Anyone launches a nuke and it's game over, MAD.

[tpmx]

It's not game over for the world if e.g. Russia nukes some remote part of Sweden/Gotland with a low yield bomb tomorrow.

[philistine]

Realistically, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, they would completely lose Indian and Chinese support, the last two nuclear powers currently playing nice with them. So long as something debilitating is the consequence of nuclear weapons, Russia will abstain.

[INTPenis]

So which propaganda should we believe? The Gotland story that all pro-NATO people use today, or the MAD story from the cold war?

[bee_rider]

Of course, I was just kidding, the buildup would be easily spotted and it would be an, uh, unpleasant environment their boats I think.

[tpmx]

It would be trivial to send an Iskander missile to Gotland to derail the NATO application.

[mongol]

You are unfortunately right. But most people don't realize that.