Ukraine, Sweden, Turkey and NATO: It ain’t over till it’s over
thehill.com
Should the EU backslide on Turkish entry, Erdogan could well renege on his commitment to support Swedish accession to NATO.

There was a post from a mass media site the other day saying Turkey was approving Sweden to join NATO. This turned out to be a bit of wishful thinking.

  • alexius@lemmy.world
    52·
    1 year ago

    I really wanna know the opinion of a citizen of Sweden, the decision is about them. Do you currently consider Russia a threat to Sweden? It seems to me that they’re depleted after invading Ukraine and more or less failing. Would NATO not intervene in a hypothetical russian invasion of Sweden because of this vote?

    • Serinus@lemmy.ml
      84·
      1 year ago

      Would you prefer a fight like Ukraine’s (even if you win), or would you rather make sure the fight never happens?

      It’s clear Putin doesn’t care about Russians dying. They’ve always just thrown blood at their targets.

      • alexius@lemmy.world
        55·
        1 year ago

        I’m worried at some aspects of your comment that seem xenophobic in nature. Most Russians disagree with the decision to attack Ukraine and even a dictator like Putin can’t pull the string forever without breaking it. We already saw the consequences of him having to rely on mercenaries a couple weeks ago. He had to rely on them because there are not enough people willing to fight. So russians in general aren’t some zombies or pawns, we shouldn’t look at them that way.

        On the other hand, I don’t see a real risk of Russia invading Sweden, and don’t even consider NATO’s response to a Russian’s hypothetical threat of invasion to another country to be the same, so in the end, while they didn’t get to join, I think they can move on without any damage and try joining later when conditions change. They’ll still be de facto protected.

        • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
          62·
          1 year ago

          Your comment is really weird. You are arguing about something the person you are replying to didn’t even say.

          They didn’t say most Russians agree with the war. They also didn’t say Russians are zombies or pawns.

          All they said was that Russian (Soviet union) leaders have a history of sacrificing their own citizens. That’s an undeniable fact.

          And stating that is in no way xenophobic.

          • alexius@lemmy.world
            3·
            1 year ago

            In my view, the comment implies that Russia invading Sweden is a decision that falls solely on Putin’s will. How is that not something that reduce russians to pawns or zombies, or them being ok with whatever war their leader instructs? They are invisible to the commenter, and that’s disturbing to me, honestly.

            Of course Putin is unable to start yet another war. He’s only partially getting away with Ukraine, and even with years of planning and propaganda, he’s struggling to stay in it, and is relying heavily in straight up mercenaries who may or may not be russian, they’re just hired assassins.

          • alexius@lemmy.world
            33·
            1 year ago

            An entire comment for you to read explaining why, but you got instatriggered and lashed out.

    • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
      66·
      1 year ago

      NATO is a defensive alliance that only defends (counterattacks) when attacked. If Sweden is not in NATO and attacked by ruzzia terrorists, they’d be supported in the same way Ukraine is being supported now. If in NATO and attacked by ruzzia, ruzzia would be instantly flattened by NATO.

                • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  Here’s the deal: Putler and his orc regime are terrorists. Countries joining NATO won’t change his mind on using nukes. If there were no NATO, he’d be just as likely to do it. You see? He is a terrorist, and also a coward.

                  • alexius@lemmy.world
                    3·
                    1 year ago

                    What do you mean by ‘are terrorists’? That word seems so ambiguous these days. Sometimes it means they infiltrate societies and attack civilians through homemade bombs, shootings or some suicidal maniacs. Sometimes it means they’re the baddies. Sometimes it’s a slur that basically means middle eastern. The word is meaningless to me at this point, specially when used to reference a country waging actual war against a sovereign country. Not even a guerrilla kind of thing.

                    They’re definitely a problem and obvious aggressors, for sure the biggest threat to peace in Europe. But how do you categorize them as ‘terrorists’?